See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 15 March 2012
mjs: there are none
mjs: there are none - there is still a trackerrequest for a post-LC bug
ISSUE-170?
<trackbot> ISSUE-170 -- make URIs valid link relations -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/170
ISSUE-192?
<trackbot> ISSUE-192 -- title attribute definition does not match reality -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/192
ISSUE-204?
<trackbot> ISSUE-204 -- Exempt ARIA attributes from the rule that prohibits reference to hidden elements -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/204
<scribe> ScribeNick: adrianba
mjs: for 204 we received a proposal and counter proposal
ISSUE-187?
<trackbot> ISSUE-187 -- Document conformance has to be stable over the time -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/187
mjs: proposal for amicable resolution - only one proposal remains
<scribe> ... closed with no objections
ISSUE-80?
<trackbot> ISSUE-80 -- document conformance and device dependent display of title attribute content -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/80
mjs: did not receive a counter proposal so likely to go to CfC soon
ISSUE-131?
<trackbot> ISSUE-131 -- Should we add a caret location API to canvas, or is the focus API sufficient? -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/131
ISSUE-158?
<trackbot> ISSUE-158 -- HTML4's content-model for <object> should continue -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/158
ISSUE-205?
<trackbot> ISSUE-205 -- Define what author guidance and/or methods should be provided to those that wish to create accessible text editors using canvas as a rendering surface. -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/205
ISSUE-179?
<trackbot> ISSUE-179 -- {audio,video} require param child (or equivalent) -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/179
mjs: call for amicable resolution closes mar 15 - only single change proposal remains
ISSUE-193?
<trackbot> ISSUE-193 -- Remove CSS example that promotes inaccessible content -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/193
ISSUE-194?
<trackbot> ISSUE-194 -- Provide a mechanism for associating a full transcript with an audio or video element. -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/194
ISSUE-195?
<trackbot> ISSUE-195 -- Enhance http request generation from forms -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/195
ISSUE-196?
<trackbot> ISSUE-196 -- Define user agent http response handling behaviour -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/196
ISSUE-197?
<trackbot> ISSUE-197 -- Accept attribute should allow file extensions in addition to the current allowed values -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/197
ISSUE-199?
<trackbot> ISSUE-199 -- Define complete processing requirements for ARIA attributes -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/199
ISSUE-201?
<trackbot> ISSUE-201 -- Provide canvas location and hit testing capability to fallback content -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/201
ISSUE-190?
<trackbot> ISSUE-190 -- Replace poor coding example for figure with multiple images -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/190
mjs: there are none
mjs: there are none
mjs: also none
<MikeSmith> for the record mikeSmith is on the cal
<MikeSmith> *call
mjs: several other topics to
discuss
... first CfC to publish heartbeat drafts - there were 2
objections but we believe the correct thing to do is to proceed
over those objections - this is a WD and does not require
consensus
... working out how to get these published
<paulc> The Chairs decision on the heartbeat publication is in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0221.html
MikeSmith: we had some private
discussions about the publications
... the chairs were asking me as team contact for the WG to
prepare the WDs
... for publication today
... i spent a lot of time doing that
... but we had some disagreement about two issues
... around Hixie spec'ing out the behaviour for dialog
element
... change proposal open for 3 months or more
... all agree that we need to add that
... second is for allow-popups on iframe sandbox
... again no disagreement because webkit and IE are already
implementing support for that feature
... don't have much choice but to spec the behaviour that is
implemented
... we don't have the spec for that behaviour because the
implementers didn't provide a spec for it
... and expect that Hixie is supposed to reverse engineer their
implementation
... I think that that is a significant amount of work - not a
matter of adding a paragraph of spec text
... requires testing and attempting to document what they
implemented
... that's a significant amount of work
... WG has decided the spec should include a feature but not
assessed the amount of work involved
... we can't do that and publish today or a week from now
... we have to decide when to publish with that
... same with dialog - CP is not sufficient for implementers to
add the dialog in their browsers
... so there's a large amount of additional work required to
implement those decisions
... it's not going to happen in a week or two weeks
... not sure how much time it will take to do this given the
other work such as canvas Path work
... i would love to be able to give a date when we can do
that
<paulc> The Chairs are planning to meet after this meeting to discuss this status from Mike.
MikeSmith: but i can't
... we have the heartbeat obligation to publish at 3 months and
we have the obligation from the decision policy that the editor
gets something done in time for us to publish an updated WD
along with everything else
... such as the open accessibility issues
... i suggest we go ahead and publish without these 2 issues
resolved
<Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to talk
MikeSmith: i think dialog is a
HTML.next feature
... i don't think anyone is demanding that we implement dialog
for HTML5
... do we need it for stable HTML5?
... same thing could be said for allow-popups
... i don't think this needs to be done in the next 2 months -
could be pushed off to the next version of HTML
... in the meantime we have w3c obligation to publish at
regular intervals and we've neglected that for last 6 months or
more
... could still publish WD with lack of dialog and sandbox
allow-popups noted as known issues
... i think holding up publication is a bad idea
mjs: like other people to
comment
... chairs need to decide if we publish today without these
changes or wait
... would like to hear input
adrianba: i don't recall seeing a request for more information about the allow-popup sandbox proposal
mjs: i talked to edward about the dialog proposal and i believe he would prefer to see publication without that for the time being
edward: the details missing that prevent the editor completing it are waiting for info from the css wg - i think in the interest of getting heartbeat doc out i'm in favour of publishing
paulc: the chairs have a meeting
scheduled after this call to discuss this matter
... none of the points that mike or ted raised are
blocking
... to tell us after this time that there is a need for more
information is a problem
... suggest we move off this topic and move on
SteveF: i can't speak to the
popup stuff
... i think we should publish the heartbeat but i disagree that
dialog should be pushed off with no timeframe to html.next -
would like to see in html5
<Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to respond to adrian and to say that the current dialog from proposal from ted+hixie is not fully implementable as specified due to ambiguity in the CP
MikeSmith: the current proposal
from ted which was put forward in good faith ironically is not
sufficient for dialog
... there are issues around how do we make this work with full
screen for example
... this is a proposed feature in the platform and we need to
make it work with dialog
... and a number of other features
... that is blocking for dialog
... that's a considerable amount of work
<paulc> I disagree with Mike's assertion that we cannot implement <dialog> due to the need to integrate with another feature. We should implement and then file bugs to gain that alignment.
<mjs> ack
wcarr: i hope we publish
heartbeats as soon as possible and more quickly so they're not
behind the ED
... if we did it more quickly issues like this wouldn't be so
important because another would be along within 6 weeks or
so
paulc: i disagree strongly with
Mike that we can't implement a WG decision because some people
think we need to decide how to solve the problem with another
immature spec
... if people think there's a problem becuase it isn't aligned
with another feature then they should file bugs
... but to say we shouldn't move forward is inappropriate
mjs: Mike and Ted , you mentioned
some issues and Mike you've probably had conversations with Ian
about clarifications
... if you think there are things needing clarification please
get it onto the mailing list because people may be able to
provide information
... i encourage you to communicate those to the group as a
whole
<Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to say that many WG decisions are not implentable
MikeSmith: as far as WG decisions
being implementable i can say as someone who has made a good
faith attempt to implement a decision that the CP often do not
contain sufficient detail in order to implement anything
unambiguously
... for example, Julian said he intended his proposal to be
open-ended about how to make the spec better
... the CP does not unambigiously document what should be
changed
... chairs agreed that they'll accept the CP because no one
objected
... but it was never implementable
mjs: this should be something to put in the mailing list
MikeSmith: please do not put the responsibility on me for this
mjs: i'm asking for examples on
the list and if there are process changes you think would
improve things please suggest that
... please get this in the mailing list
MikeSmith: thanks, i will do that
SteveF: Hixie adds stuff to the
spec all the time that is half formed or does not have
agreement or consensus
... we have dialog that has some consensus so i don't see why
it can't be added and then the details worked out
... chairs and the WG needs to work this out
... think the argument is spurious that it can't be added
because it's not complete
<paulc> +1 to SteveF points
SteveF: menu item for example is
in there but hasn't been implemented (except context menu not
according to spec)
... doesn't need to be fully formed to be in the spec
... not the way Hixie works, why should CPs have to be up to
that standard
mjs: thanks for the input on this
topic
... moving on in the interests of time
... CfC on the F2F meeting - no objections on coordinated
meeting with HTML and WebApps WG in May in Silicon Valley
... do intend to have interim meeting there
... any comments?
paulc: registration page will be
available soon
... possibly today or tomorrow
ISSUE-183?
<trackbot> ISSUE-183 -- Enhance and simplify the time element -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/183
mjs: chairs noted 2 proposals
agreed on one aspect, something already in the spec
... CfC to take that off the table so time wouldn't be spent on
something everyone agrees on
... sent feedback on proposals asking to remove those points
and justify everything else
... change was about time syntax
... Revert request for http+aes scheme was received
... several messages of agreement including original proposer -
revert completed
... DST changes - links to email about DST changes
... W3C telcons are on north american time (US Eastern)
... your time may change
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Mar/0081.html
mjs: there is a new weekly summary
http://www.w3.org/QA/2012/03/openweb-weekly-28.html
mjs: decisions pending heartbeat
drafts - lots of recently closed items that were CfC at various
times that chairs haven't published yet
... may have to reassess that knowing that 2 decisions are not
applied yet
... we have not overlooked them
ISSUE-164?
<trackbot> ISSUE-164 -- remove or modify hgroup -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/164
SteveF: what is the status here?
<mjs> http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-164
paulc: this is in my queue to evaluate - there are 5 change proposals
<paulc> http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-164
paulc: haven't got to it
yet
... this work is in the chairs input queue to evaluate CPs and
it is a work in progress
mjs: volunteers?
<glenn> i can scribe
mjs: Sam will chair that
meeting
... thanks glenn
mjs: thanks for calling in - see you next week
<scribe> Scribe: Adrian Bateman
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/this should/dialog should/ Found ScribeNick: adrianba Found Scribe: Adrian Bateman Default Present: glenn, eliot, Radhika_Roy, [Microsoft], adrianba, Joe_Steele, Clarke, Sam, +1.415.595.aaaa, Wayne_Carr, hober, Mike, Plh, Janina Present: glenn eliot Radhika_Roy [Microsoft] adrianba Joe_Steele Clarke Sam +1.415.595.aaaa Wayne_Carr hober Mike Plh Janina Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2012JanMar/0024.html Found Date: 15 Mar 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-html-wg-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]