Hypertext Coordination Group Teleconference
19 Nov 2010

Action items

<ChrisL> ACTION-58?

<trackbot> ACTION-58 -- Philippe Le Hégaret to follow up on bugzilla accessibility issues -- due 2010-10-29 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/CoordGroup/track/actions/58

<ChrisL> plh: systeam updated to latest bugzilla, may have helped.

<ChrisL> close ACTION-58

<trackbot> ACTION-58 Follow up on bugzilla accessibility issues closed

Status report

Chris: would be good if people were sending status report
... maybe Debiie and I can put back the list of status report
... it is possible for staff contacts to send them
... nit just chairs
Debbie: don't think there is anything we can do to make it easier
... it's a matter of a few sentence on what's going on

Chris: it's quite useful to have them all in one place
... it's useful if there are upcoming last call
Doug: having some sort of structure might help. resolutions, working drafts, etc.

Chris: yes, maybe Debbie and I can work on a template

<plh-home> ACTION: Chris to develop a template for WG status report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/19-hcg-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-61 - Develop a template for WG status report [on Chris Lilley - due 2010-11-26].
Debbie: key thing is how it affects other groups

TC 39

<ChrisL> scribenick: chrisl

plh remotely (kind of) attended tc39 in california

scribe: topics included working better with w3c, liaison list will be sent
... cameron was there and other webapps wg folks, talked about webidl
... to better understand it. expect liaison request soon - webapps, dap, etc

Doug: webevents?

plh: there is a long list of working groups that are working on APIs

Doug: we don't do org to org liaison, mostly group to group

plh: we do, sometimes, but don't favour it

Doug: say we don't do it

plh: its not true though
... once we have a request we will direct them to the right groups

Doug: we already have a mailing list specifically for webapps webidl work

plh: they do not necessarily understand everything we do in this space
... like multiple additions to the window object

Doug: don't think a formal liaison will help here

plh: only caught the end of the discussion
... we could give them a full list of specs containing apis

Doug: sounds like makework

plh: /TR has that already

LC

Chris: WOFF is ongoing
... any other?

TR draft warnings

PLH: html wg started it, now spread to others; warning that editors draft is more up to date

PLH: so they wanted to redirect people to editors drafts where feedback is incorporated rapidly

PLH: so its fne to warn people but remind WGs to update /TR version at least every three months
... some drafts not updated for a year or more
... heartbeat requirement
... was not enough for html wg, more frequent than 3 months was needed

Chris: how to add this while still meeting pubrules?

<shepazu> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/DOM-Level-3-Events/html/DOM3-Events.html

PLH: various ways to do it, people still miss the link sometimes

<shepazu> [I've added an Editor's Draft and Public Comments link to the top of DOM3 Events]

PLH: some groups have popups. any of these is fine, no specific format is recommended at the moment
... more and more groups have public editors versions

Doug: its fine to experiment but there is a lot to be said for consistency across specs. should have a standardised way to do it
... otherwise its harder for casual consumers of secs to figure it out
... dom3 events has editors draft link at the top, also added a public comments link
... because people can't figure out how to comment on a spec
... people don't read the sotd

Chris: people ignore sotd?

Doug: this is a good way to present it

Chris: looks like a clear way, we could standardize on that

Doug: check out how I did for DOM3 events to advertize the archive for public comments

<Zakim> Bert, you wanted to ask that WG's refrain from making public editor's drafts. It is hard enough already to explain to people what the various statuses on /TR mean...

Bert: agree on consistency, public comment link is good, but now its different from other wgs
... need rules for this

Bert: agree with consistency otherwise it will be impossible to follow between working groups
... the /TR process is the right one
... we should keep to w3c process

Doug: it's appropriate to experiment with several ways. don't see a problem with that, as long as we get to the best way

bert: the format was set more than 10 years ago

doug: don't think we should simply follow history

chris: 10 years ago, everything single group worked in members space and it was easy to update /TR
... things have changed now. we have public groups, with public editor's drafts

<Bert> (For example, Doug's draft doesn't have "latest version" but "latest stable version", which means some of my scripts fail. :-( )

chris: and responses to comments can point to editor's draft

Bert: we have a dozen state for /TR drafts nowadays. it's impossible to explain all of that to people?

Doug: so, how do we explain to people that the draft they're looking at is out of date?

[stop minuting]

Chris: linking to editor's drafts should be done in a consistent manner. don't forget to update your /TR, ie don't let them rot.
... let's pick one way to link to editor's draft and follow up
... as well as the comment link
... next step? seems we should take that to chairs

<scribe> ACTION: Doug to follow up to chairs on links to comments and editor's drafts [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/19-hcg-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-62 - Follow up to chairs on links to comments and editor's drafts [on Doug Schepers - due 2010-11-26].

Web Events and Touch Interface

Doug: we launched the Working Group
... we're going to work on touch interfaces
... physical actions
... and high level events
... such as undo
... there are several ways to do undo (shake, menu edit, etc.)
... similar to DOMActivate but more likely to be implemented.

Chris: sounds like a useful direction, similar to textevent

Web-on-TV

Doug: heard a lot at TPAC and in Japan.
... had discussion with various companies
... remote controls is one case
... we have this all new situation. browser/tv agents
... kaz is the contact for this

chris: good to see activity in this area, but let's not create an other vertical silo.
... ie let's avoid the subsetting effect
... what sort of steps are being taken again that?

Doug: received an email from comcast expressing that same sentiment

kaz: the conclusion has been to create an IG
... we're not planning to create a new silo or new spec, but concentrate on use cases from broadcasters instead

<kaz> workshop summary

debbie: lots of different type of organizations are interested in this domain

<kaz> workshop attendees

debbie: browser vendors, hardware makers, broadcasters, etc.

Next meeting

Debbie: Dec 31 will be canceled
... next one is Dec 3