16:04:49 RRSAgent has joined #html-wg 16:04:49 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/04-html-wg-irc 16:05:04 trackbot, start meeting 16:05:06 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:05:06 Zakim has joined #html-wg 16:05:08 Zakim, this will be html_wg 16:05:08 ok, trackbot; I see HTML_WG()12:00PM scheduled to start 5 minutes ago 16:05:09 Meeting: HTML Weekly Teleconference 16:05:09 Date: 04 May 2012 16:05:32 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:05:32 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/04-html-wg-minutes.html timeless 16:06:40 zakim, what is the code? 16:06:40 the conference code is 4865 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), paulc2 16:08:29 Zakim, list 16:08:29 I see Team_(multimodal)16:00Z, Team_(DOCS)11:00AM, W3C_DOCS(Branding)12:00PM, XML_SchemaWG()11:00AM active 16:08:31 also scheduled at this time are HTML_WG()12:00PM, Team_(PUBL)12:00PM 16:08:36 yosuke has joined #html-wg 16:08:49 Present+ Yosuke_Funahashi 16:08:58 present+ Josh_Soref 16:09:07 Zakim, this will be 26631 16:09:07 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, MikeSmith 16:09:15 janina has joined #html-wg 16:11:13 magnus has joined #html-wg 16:11:39 present+ Odin_Horthe_Omdal 16:11:44 adrianba has joined #html-wg 16:11:51 Present+ Magnus_Olsson 16:11:54 Present+ Soonbo_Han 16:11:56 Zakim, nick timeless is Josh_Soref 16:11:56 sorry, timeless, I do not see a party named 'Josh_Soref' 16:12:01 ddorwin has joined #html-wg 16:12:06 joesteele has joined #html-wg 16:12:18 Present+ JF 16:13:14 johnsim has joined #html-wg 16:13:45 BobLund has joined #html-wg 16:13:51 HTML_WG()12:00PM has now started 16:13:53 +F2F 16:14:06 +Present Glenn_Adams_(glenn) 16:14:08 Zakim, Josh_Soref has entered F2F 16:14:08 +Josh_Soref; got it 16:14:14 Zakim, MikeSmith has entered F2F 16:14:14 +MikeSmith; got it 16:14:17 + +1.858.677.aaaa 16:14:18 - +1.858.677.aaaa 16:14:18 + +1.858.677.aaaa 16:14:26 Zakim, paulc has entered F2F 16:14:26 +paulc; got it 16:14:30 Zakim, JF has entered F2F 16:14:30 +JF; got it 16:14:39 Zakim, janina has entered F2F 16:14:39 +janina; got it 16:14:43 Zakim, bryan has entered F2F 16:14:43 +bryan; got it 16:14:48 Zakim, sam has entered F2F 16:14:48 +sam; got it 16:14:48 Arno_ has joined #html-wg 16:14:57 Zakim, Arno_ has entered F2F 16:14:57 +Arno_; got it 16:15:13 Zakim, glenn has entered F2F 16:15:13 +glenn; got it 16:15:13 present+ Arnaud_Braud 16:15:19 rubys has joined #html-wg 16:15:20 paulc has joined #html-wg 16:15:26 Zakim, nick Arno_ is Arnaud_Braud 16:15:26 sorry, timeless, I do not see a party named 'Arnaud_Braud' 16:15:33 Zakim, Arno_ is Arnaud_Braud 16:15:33 sorry, timeless, I do not recognize a party named 'Arno_' 16:15:41 Zakim, Arno_ has left F2F 16:15:41 -Arno_; got it 16:16:02 Zakim, Arnaud_Braud has entered F2F 16:16:02 +Arnaud_Braud; got it 16:16:07 Zakim, who is here? 16:16:07 On the phone I see F2F, +1.858.677.aaaa 16:16:09 F2F has Josh_Soref, MikeSmith, paulc, JF, janina, bryan, sam, glenn, Arnaud_Braud 16:16:09 On IRC I see paulc, rubys, Arno_, BobLund, johnsim, joesteele, ddorwin, adrianba, magnus, janina, yosuke, Zakim, RRSAgent, anne, shan, acolwell, JF, hiroki, glenn, icaaq, 16:16:09 ... MikeSmith, plh, shepazu, mattur, davidb, miketaylr, johndrinkwater, Lachy, logbot, jgraham, paulc2, timeless, odinho, gavin, jmb, Philip, arronei, danielfilho, Dashiva, 16:16:14 ... hiro_away, heycam|away, trackbot, krijnh, decadance, ed, Jedi, lgombos, rektide, paul_irish, hober, [tm], gsnedders, pingo, hsivonen, Hixie, inimino, CIA-1 16:16:34 presentzajkim, Paul_Cotton has entered F2F 16:16:37 laura has joined #html-wg 16:16:48 zakim, Paul_Cotton has entered F2F 16:16:48 +Paul_Cotton; got it 16:16:49 s/presentzajkim, Paul_Cotton has entered F2F// 16:16:58 Zakim, paulc has left F2F 16:16:58 -paulc; got it 16:17:05 Zakim, nick paulc is Paul_Cotton 16:17:05 sorry, timeless, I do not see a party named 'Paul_Cotton' 16:17:38 Present+ Adrian_Bateman 16:17:53 frankolivier has joined #html-wg 16:17:58 Mark_Vickers has joined #html-wg 16:18:00 Zakim, Adrian_Bateman has joined F2F 16:18:00 sorry, timeless, I do not recognize a party named 'Adrian_Bateman' 16:18:04 Present+ David_Dorwin 16:18:08 Zakim, Adrian_Bateman has entered F2F 16:18:08 +Adrian_Bateman; got it 16:18:31 Russell_Berkoff has joined #html-wg 16:18:44 Present+ Russell_Berkoff(Samsung) 16:19:04 Zakim, Russell_Berkoff has entered F2F 16:19:04 +Russell_Berkoff; got it 16:20:09 Zakim, aaaa is Peter_Peterka 16:20:09 +Peter_Peterka; got it 16:20:16 Zakim, who is on the call? 16:20:16 On the phone I see F2F, Peter_Peterka 16:20:17 F2F has Josh_Soref, MikeSmith, JF, janina, bryan, sam, glenn, Arnaud_Braud, Paul_Cotton, Adrian_Bateman, Russell_Berkoff 16:20:40 Zakim, Odin_Horthe_Omdal has entered F2F 16:20:40 +Odin_Horthe_Omdal; got it 16:21:09 Topic: Introduction 16:21:16 paulc: This is the agenda for today 16:21:21 ... we lost the whiteboard 16:21:26 ... we said we'd do the two media topics 16:21:31 ... and a CfC 16:21:39 ... after coffee, we'd do charter for V.next 16:21:49 ... after lunch is open issues (ISSUE-204) and test suite 16:21:54 ... chairs did a discussion last night 16:22:04 ... and noted that while we don't have all the proponents of 204 16:22:11 ... whether it'd be worth discussing it 16:22:18 ... we have one proposal from cynthia 16:22:34 ... and one from sicking and "Matthew" 16:22:42 ... do we expect cynthia to be here today? 16:22:47 janina: we expect her today 16:23:01 paulc: we'd need someone to speak to sicking's side of the issue 16:23:08 ... i don't know if hober could look at sicking's proposal 16:23:10 ... at lunch 16:23:16 ... and be an animateur of sicking 16:23:24 ... after our successful use of F2F discussion yesterday 16:23:26 ISSUE-204? 16:23:26 ISSUE-204 -- Exempt ARIA attributes from the rule that prohibits reference to hidden elements -- open 16:23:26 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/204 16:23:37 ... the chairs realized maybe we should tackle ISSUE-204 while we're here 16:23:47 ... we're open to discussion of other issues if people want to give us an ISSUE- number 16:23:58 ... we can also look at a page sam has that gives us a table 16:24:06 ... it might be useful for the WG to actually review that 16:24:15 ... these are topics we failed to cover yesterday 16:24:28 ... we discussed stabalization and had a bullet item for a CG 16:24:37 ... the other was a decision to defer ISSUE-184 16:24:44 ... we can do it under "Open Issues" 16:24:57 ... my notes indicate we, the chairs, could defer it 16:25:02 ... got everything, scribe? 16:25:06 [ scribe nods ] 16:25:13 ISSUE-184? 16:25:13 ISSUE-184 -- Add a data element -- open 16:25:13 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/184 16:25:16 Topic: Media Proposals 16:25:24 paulc: which proposal do we want to do first? 16:25:27 ... Encrypted 16:25:34 ... there was a suggestion to do Media Source first 16:25:42 ... do we have someone to walk us through 16:25:46 Petr has joined #html-wg 16:26:04 colwell 16:26:06 paulc: plh, welcome 16:26:17 Zakim, plh has entered F2F 16:26:17 +plh; got it 16:26:26 Zakim, Aaron_Colwell has entered F2F 16:26:26 +Aaron_Colwell; got it 16:26:46 Zakim, frankolivier has entered F2F 16:26:46 +frankolivier; got it 16:26:55 Zakim, who is on the call? 16:26:55 On the phone I see F2F, Peter_Peterka 16:26:56 F2F has Josh_Soref, MikeSmith, JF, janina, bryan, sam, glenn, Arnaud_Braud, Paul_Cotton, Adrian_Bateman, Russell_Berkoff, Odin_Horthe_Omdal, plh, Aaron_Colwell, frankolivier 16:27:04 tpod has joined #html-wg 16:27:07 Zakim, anne has entered F2F 16:27:07 +anne; got it 16:27:13 bryan has joined #html-wg 16:27:16 aaron_colwell: should I project? 16:27:20 paulc: yes 16:27:36 [ Technical break ] 16:27:46 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/media-source/media-source.html 16:27:49 Zakim, hober has entered F2F 16:27:49 +hober; got it 16:27:55 present+ Bryan_Sullivan 16:28:02 are any presentations available online? 16:28:04 s/aaron_colwell:/acolwell:/ 16:28:17 acolwell: its main purpose is to allow JS to create a presentation 16:28:27 chaals has joined #html-wg 16:28:48 s|http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/media-source/media-source.html|-> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/media-source/media-source.html Media Source specification| 16:28:55 acolwell: the spec is split into parts 16:28:58 Petr, the document itself is being displayed in the room 16:29:00 ... the html media element 16:29:09 ... append data to the tag 16:29:15 ... examples of supporting different formats 16:29:24 ... we have a byte-stream format for WebM and ISO based media format 16:29:34 ... and there's a way to add streams of your choice, like ogg 16:29:42 ... this picture describes how to think about it 16:29:52 ... the media element is a model of 16:30:05 [ acolwell points to part of the picture ] 16:30:24 acolwell: it introduces the concept of the elemnt 16:30:28 s/elemnt/element/ 16:30:31 ... and a source buffer 16:30:38 ... and the Media Engine will pull stuff out of the source buffer 16:30:44 ... and this is associated with splicing behavior 16:30:52 ... especially for elements close to the current playback time 16:30:54 -Peter_Peterka 16:30:56 ... questions? 16:31:00 [ None ] 16:31:05 acolwell: this is the theoretical model 16:31:11 ... to agree on what the media engine looks like 16:31:35 ... this covers Splicing 16:31:38 ... Media Segments 16:31:44 ... to start you give it a media segment 16:31:54 Wonsuk has joined #html-wg 16:31:54 s/a media/an initialization/ 16:31:58 ... and then you do appending 16:32:05 Zakim, Wonsuk has entered F2F 16:32:05 +Wonsuk; got it 16:32:05 Present+ Wonsuk_Lee 16:32:20 ... multiple implementations can append over an area 16:32:32 ... how does the media engine decide to take that in 16:32:55 ... here is how the api looks 16:33:08 ... you can use a single source id and use multiplexed 16:33:13 ... and then switch on things 16:33:38 ... Activating the "media source mode" on the html media element 16:33:45 ... currently you assign the mode to the media source elemnt 16:33:48 s/elemnt/element/ 16:33:53 ... and that's what causes it to be active 16:33:57 ... there's an open issue on that 16:34:04 ... for instance integrating with the tag 16:34:12 ... currently the only way to activate this mode is with JS 16:34:19 ... there's add/remove-id 16:34:25 ... to create/destroy media buffers 16:34:36 ... so you can create a new source buffer during the presentation 16:34:52 ... the sourceBuffered property allows you to see what the browser is holding 16:35:05 ... so a js app can understand what the browser has 16:35:10 ... so it can decide what to append next 16:35:32 ... currently there's sourceAppend() which takes a Uint8Array (of bytes) 16:35:37 ... this is how you get media data in 16:35:42 ... sourceAbort() is a way to 16:35:51 ... we have Segments, initialization segments, media segments 16:35:56 ... if someone requests a seek 16:36:00 ... you may want to abort 16:36:14 ... and start appending a segment for the new seek point 16:36:27 ... sourceEndOfStream() to signal you're done with the presentation 16:36:36 ... and provides a way for JS app to signal other types of errors 16:36:47 ... Network Errors, Decode Errors, ... 16:37:04 joesteele: is the network error 16:37:09 ... only an I'm out of data error 16:37:10 q+ 16:37:33 acolwell: the intent is to single the same errors as you would normally 16:37:34 vimeo_joe has joined #html-wg 16:37:42 ... so an XHR error could trigger end of stream 16:38:09 s/single/signal/ 16:38:16 ... a common one is to signal network errors/... 16:38:25 ... this is a way to route an error code from the JS app running the API 16:38:31 ... to the player's hooks for error handling 16:38:38 ... sourceState keeps track of state 16:38:46 ... SOURCE_CLOSED/... 16:38:58 ... when you activate it, it changes to SOURCE_OPEN 16:39:08 .. and sourceEndOfStream() switches to SOURCE_ENDED 16:39:14 s/.. and/... and/ 16:39:29 ... and then a seek could switch back to SOURCE_OPEN 16:39:30 the WebIDL in the spec needs a refresh btw. doesn't match latest WebIDL spec 16:39:39 glenn: i noticed you added this to HTMLMediaElement 16:39:48 acolwell: implementationwise 16:39:51 plh: looks like WebKit IDL 16:39:53 ... it made side, 16:40:01 ... things are closely tied to the element 16:40:07 glenn: could you add it to MediaController? 16:40:19 acolwell: it'd be kind of confusing, since that's tied to multiple tags 16:40:24 ... what would that mean? 16:40:35 ... i could understand it if you had it on multiple tags 16:40:42 ... think of this as "having a url" 16:40:45 ... and JS is the source 16:40:58 glenn: for things ... 16:41:08 acolwell: there's an open question about making this a separate object 16:41:13 ... relating to sourceURL 16:41:14 dveditz has joined #html-wg 16:41:22 ... say you attach it to the element 16:41:28 ... as with WebRTC 16:41:31 ... for this interface 16:41:36 ... with a special media-source-url 16:41:40 ... i could have on-source-open 16:41:43 ... on-source-closed 16:41:46 ... on-source-buffered 16:41:59 ... i wouldn't need extra stuff to hook this up 16:42:06 ... but that's an open item 16:42:15 glenn: is a declarative interface wanted? 16:42:22 acolwell: i need to define that as an open issue 16:42:33 ... you could define this and then non-adaptive as fallback 16:42:37 glenn: events... 16:42:41 ... i didn't see functions 16:42:43 Events -> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/media-source/media-source.html#event-summary 16:42:45 acolwell: they aren't declared here 16:43:01 s|Events -> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/media-source/media-source.html#event-summary|-> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/media-source/media-source.html#event-summary Events| 16:43:27 acolwell: when I was working on this for Chrome 16:43:30 ... yeah i need to add this 16:43:47 paulc: do the authors of this proposal have a place tracking open issues? 16:43:48 adrianba: not yet 16:43:56 ... we talked to MikeSmith about that this morning 16:44:03 paulc: having a bugzilla component would be the easiest way 16:44:12 adrianba: we have for the other proposal a bugzilla component 16:44:17 ... and bugs filed 16:44:26 ... today, we have issues highlighted in the document 16:44:35 paulc: is your general plan to get a bugzilla component 16:44:43 ... and transfer them 16:44:45 mark has joined #html-wg 16:44:50 ... and is what glenn identified a new item? 16:44:52 acolwell: yes 16:44:57 ... i'll look at the transcript 16:45:08 -> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?product=HTML%20WG&component=Media%20Source%20Extensions Media Source Extensions bugzilla component 16:45:11 Josh_Soref: the transcript is incomplete 16:45:15 ... glenn will need to help out 16:45:22 paulc: there's a goal of creating components 16:45:24 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:45:24 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/04-html-wg-minutes.html MikeSmith 16:45:28 ... and moving things in ASAP 16:45:42 ... and the item glenn raised on callbacks would be moved there 16:45:46 acolwell: any other questions? 16:45:49 [ None ] 16:46:03 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:46:03 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/04-html-wg-minutes.html MikeSmith 16:46:15 Byte Stream Formats -> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/media-source/media-source.html#byte-stream-formats 16:46:18 acolwell: Byte Stream formats 16:46:31 s|Byte Stream Formats -> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/media-source/media-source.html#byte-stream-formats|-> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/media-source/media-source.html#byte-stream-formats Byte Stream Formats| 16:46:52 ... so you can take your format (ISO, WebM, ...) to the bytestream 16:46:56 ... and to make it concrete 16:47:07 ... we've described how WebM maps to the bytestream 16:47:18 ... what elements that could appear in the stream that you can ignore 16:47:32 ... certain elements needed in WebM aren't needed in source 16:47:37 ... we've done the same thing for ISO 16:47:50 ... the intent is to describe stuff enough to implement DASH using MPEG fragment files 16:48:01 ... in both cases, the spec isn't saying you should support them 16:48:13 ... it's saying "if you do it", "you should do it this way" for interop 16:48:24 adrianba: we tried to make the introduction descriptive enough 16:48:31 ... so you could walk up with a new media format 16:48:36 ... and just make it work 16:48:47 ... but at the same time, we wanted to avoid 16:48:51 ... for common formats 16:48:58 ... that you don't have multiple slightly different versions 16:49:10 ... because people just took the description and applied it slightly differently in each impl 16:49:17 ... that's why we mixed them together 16:49:38 ... the specific examples are (non-)normative / not-required 16:49:49 acolwell: the bytestream sort of touches with Encrypted stuff 16:49:55 tantek has joined #html-wg 16:50:02 ... we need definitions for initialization and intermediate sections 16:50:07 ... while they don't depend on eachother 16:50:19 ... they need to cover the Encryption use cases 16:50:26 ... there's a need for them to interoperate 16:50:33 s/each impl/each implementation/ 16:50:53 q? 16:50:57 ack 16:50:58 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/media-source/media-source.html#open-issues Open issues 16:51:01 q? 16:51:04 ack glenn 16:51:07 acolwell: there's a buffer, and there's no limit on how much you can append into the browser 16:51:17 s|http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/media-source/media-source.html#open-issues Open issues|-> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/media-source/media-source.html#open-issues Open issues| 16:51:30 acolwell: there's discussion about having a callback for when you can append more data 16:51:48 ... that's because we hadn't decided how to make certain things asynchronous 16:51:56 ... another issue is Splicing behavior 16:52:03 ... there might be a limit on Buffer count 16:52:14 ... or adding buffers midplayback 16:52:25 ... there's a mechanism needed to detect constraints on an implementation 16:52:33 ... looking at splicing details 16:52:43 ... there may be cases where an implementation can't do the splice immediately 16:52:50 ... it might need to wait for a keyframe 16:53:03 ... and js may need to do something based on the capabilities of the browser 16:53:09 ... maybe we'd use mime type parameters 16:53:15 ... we might reuse canPlay() 16:53:28 ... another is changing sourceAppend to accept urls with byte-range parameters 16:53:35 ... some reasons for this 16:53:49 ... to avoid pulling bytes from XHR and then push back in 16:54:02 ... saving the browser from copying out into a js context and then back down 16:54:09 ... to make things more asynchronous 16:54:14 ... and to add progress events 16:54:19 ... so you could make switching decisions 16:54:29 ... it would be useful in an adaptive streaming scenario 16:54:34 ... that's an important area to me 16:54:42 ... it would allow us to reduce the JS code that we have 16:54:52 ... timestamp offset 16:55:03 ... i have a bunch of files and need to insert them at a point in the timeline 16:55:09 ... the files have internal timestamps of 0 16:55:20 ... but i want to map them to another timeline point (2 minutes) 16:55:31 ... so you could dynamically append these things in with adjusted timelines 16:55:37 ... we think this is useful for ondemand 16:55:41 ... and also in live 16:55:44 ... timed text 16:55:50 ... the spec only discusses audio/video 16:55:57 ... but we want to enable timed text as well 16:56:05 ... i don't think it'll be too difficult, but we need to look at it 16:56:10 ... WebAudio 16:56:19 ... WebRTC's MediaStreams 16:56:29 ... we need to have discussions about how these proposals work together 16:56:47 ... it would be nice to be able to take stuff from stream and do post processing using WebAudio 16:56:56 ... or start with source and map that to WebRTC 16:57:08 ... we need to see if things are similar enough to make them work 16:57:10 ... Tracks 16:57:15 ... how to identify them 16:57:28 ... using source with a track 16:57:39 ... when data appears, you need to know which source buffer to append it 16:57:46 ... there are track properties 16:58:03 ... Dash manifests specify "kind of language" and "kind of track" 16:58:09 ... and we need a way to bubble that up 16:58:16 ... they won't be part of the initial append 16:58:23 ... that's it 16:58:38 glenn: timed text tracks, are you considering it? 16:58:45 acolwell: yes, BobLund brought it up 16:58:47 glenn: Timing 16:58:52 ... is this a HTML.next feature? 16:58:54 acolwell: yes 16:59:00 ... definitely HTML.next 16:59:05 acolwell: I have a demo 16:59:10 [ Local Demo ] 16:59:15 acolwell: this is an older api 16:59:30 ... what you're seeing here are different bitrates in a dash manifest 16:59:39 ... JS is downloading chunks via XHR and appending them 16:59:45 ... i 17:00:00 s/... i/... i'll simulate congestion/ 17:00:14 ... now it'll switch 17:00:28 ... this isn't just a thought experiment 17:00:32 ... we actually have this working 17:00:48 ... Chrome is planning on getting the proposed version implemented by the end of the Quarter 17:00:53 +q 17:00:55 ... it should be in Chrome 21 behind a flag 17:00:59 s/+q/q+ 17:01:07 ... what we're really interested in is AppendURL 17:01:18 http://git.chromium.org/gitweb/?p=webm/webm-dash-javascript.git 17:01:40 s|http://git.chromium.org/gitweb/?p=webm/webm-dash-javascript.git|-> http://git.chromium.org/gitweb/?p=webm/webm-dash-javascript.git acolwell's Demo| 17:02:02 ... we actually had to interleave the audio and video chunks 17:02:08 ... in JavaScript 17:02:13 ... which is why source id was created 17:02:20 ... so you wouldn't have to do crazy media stream parsing in JS 17:02:33 content creation guide: https://sites.google.com/a/webmproject.org/wiki/adaptive-streaming/instructions-to-playback-a-webm-dash-presentation 17:02:57 s|content creation guide: https://sites.google.com/a/webmproject.org/wiki/adaptive-streaming/instructions-to-playback-a-webm-dash-presentation|-> https://sites.google.com/a/webmproject.org/wiki/adaptive-streaming/instructions-to-playback-a-webm-dash-presentation Content creation guide| 17:03:01 RRSAgent, draft minutes 17:03:01 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/04-html-wg-minutes.html timeless 17:03:30 acolwell: our goal is to make as much of this as possible Open Source 17:03:38 ... the benefit is that people can adapt this and modify this 17:03:42 ... to their own CDN ... 17:03:54 odinho: I would have filed a bug if there was a bugzilla component 17:04:01 ... the API is using Numeric constants 17:04:06 ... and that's an anti pattern lately 17:04:12 ... WebWorkers don't use constants 17:04:23 ... IndexedDB changed to string constants 17:04:31 acolwell: are there plans to do that with ready state? 17:04:41 ... we did it to match enums in media element 17:04:50 odinho: it's hard to change when it's already there 17:05:12 Josh_Soref: some readyState properties were moving to strings 17:05:16 acolwell: i'm fine with it 17:05:34 paulc: is there a spec that you can point to 17:05:48 ... that says "these specs are inconsistent, but you should use this pattern" 17:06:00 hober: at this point, it's mostly folklore 17:06:10 anne: i'm not sure we quite decided 17:06:13 ... for consistency 17:06:36 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Jan/0038.html 17:06:55 Josh_Soref: WebRTC was looking to move to that 17:07:07 acolwell: documenting this intent so people creating new apis would know this 17:07:10 ... it would be helpful 17:07:44 mark_vickers: we are using a lot of adaptive streaming 17:07:48 ... there's this dash spec 17:07:55 ... which is good because everyone is moving to it 17:08:00 ... but it's early days 17:08:08 ... but this is better 17:08:17 ... since it makes dash soft 17:08:23 ... you can adapt something else 17:08:30 ... i think this is the right kind of approach 17:08:35 acolwell: the feedback we got 17:08:41 ... each deployment was different 17:08:55 ... "we have multiple CDNs with different cost 17:09:07 ... ... and if we're getting bad perf, we want to switch" 17:09:18 paulc: tbl said that he wished vendors would bring things less baked 17:09:23 ... on a scale of 0 to 1.0 17:09:31 ... is this spec 0.5, 0.6, 0.9? 17:09:35 ... you've talked about internal issues 17:09:39 ... does this handle the scope you wanted? 17:09:48 acolwell: even as we're implementing the source buffer model 17:09:54 ... we're running into things about splicing 17:10:00 ... there will be issues 17:10:07 ... and a number of things will be big 17:10:19 adrianba: rather than assuming a single dimensional scale 17:10:26 ... i'd say, the proposal as it stands today 17:10:34 ... is a good encapsulation of the scope 17:10:44 ... with the current proposed api+buffer model + open issues 17:10:51 ... represents a good scope of functionality 17:10:57 ... thinking back to earlier in the week in WebApps 17:11:02 ... a good idea for FPWD 17:11:06 ... is to be clear on Scope 17:11:10 ... for IP exclusions 17:11:21 ... "is this the set of IP i'm going to care about?" 17:11:28 ... or "are you going to add/remove things?" 17:11:40 ... i wouldn't expect we're going to all of a sudden add a new chapter 17:11:50 paulc: you're setting the scope that it's extensible by using JS 17:11:55 adrianba: the Use of it is extensible 17:12:06 paulc: ... rather than being locked into a format 17:12:23 mark: this is sufficient to base a commercial service 17:12:29 ... it's very well scoped 17:12:37 ... the service could be improved 17:12:46 ... you could get better with bandwidth estimation 17:13:11 s/you're/as mark_vickers said, you're/ 17:13:16 Encrypted Media Extensions - http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html 17:13:47 ack me 17:14:23 i/aaron_colwell: should I project/Topic: Media Source Extensions/ 17:14:23 mjs has joined #html-wg 17:14:31 Topic: Encrypted Media Extensions 17:14:38 s/Topic: Encrypted Media Extensions// 17:14:44 i/Encrypted Media Extensions -/Topic: Encrypted Media Extensions/ 17:15:04 s|Encrypted Media Extensions - http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html|-> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html Encrypted Media Extensions| 17:15:15 ddorwin: David Dowin, Google 17:15:21 s/Dowin/Dorwin/ 17:15:40 ... The goal is to let us have commercial content, that's protected, in the HTML5 video tags 17:15:47 ... today most of this is a proprietary stack 17:15:53 ... where the entire player is involved 17:16:01 ... we'd like to have the entire player with html5 17:16:09 ... we're looking for the minimal changes 17:16:15 ... to accomplish a wide range of UCs 17:16:18 ... on how baked is this 17:16:25 ... we spent a lot of time going through the UCs 17:16:29 ... there are still Open Questions 17:16:32 ... and we filed those 17:16:39 ... and there are other things we'd like to consider 17:16:59 Zakim, who is on the call? 17:16:59 On the phone I see F2F 17:17:00 F2F has Josh_Soref, MikeSmith, JF, janina, bryan, sam, glenn, Arnaud_Braud, Paul_Cotton, Adrian_Bateman, Russell_Berkoff, Odin_Horthe_Omdal, plh, Aaron_Colwell, frankolivier, anne, 17:17:00 ... hober, Wonsuk 17:17:13 ddorwin: start with the overview picture 17:17:17 ... download the media 17:17:20 ... playback stack 17:17:24 ... oh, the application is in control 17:17:25 -> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html#introduction Overview 17:17:36 ... we make no assumptions about the CDM having network access 17:17:49 ... when encrypted media is seen, it will fire a needkey event 17:18:01 ... and it can use canPlayType() to see what's supported 17:18:03 ... application picks one 17:18:11 ... calls generateKeyRequest() to the CDM 17:18:23 ... we defined a term "CDM", - Content Decryption Model 17:18:28 ... to separate what's in the W3C spec 17:18:32 ... for the Media element 17:18:43 ... to something that's possibly platform/hardware specific 17:18:48 ... that's behind the scenes 17:18:55 ... essentially a request is forwarded to CDM 17:19:02 ... send a request to License Server 17:19:06 ... and send a key back down 17:19:10 ... application uses addKey() 17:19:17 ... you can have multiple keys 17:19:32 ... the media stack when it detects an encrypted frame 17:19:37 ... can ask CDM to decrypt 17:19:47 ... that's just one option 17:19:56 ... you could support a Secure Media Pipeline 17:20:00 adrianba: the way i think about this 17:20:09 ... this diagram already represents the conceptual model 17:20:19 ... for how to think about which parts are done by Media Stack and which by CDM 17:20:24 ... we've had feedback about this on the list 17:20:37 ... we're not saying this api requires exposing the decoded frame to another component 17:20:48 ... the implementation of how the frame gets to the frame is an implementation detail 17:20:51 chaals: in a real system 17:20:57 ... instead of frames going back to the media stack 17:21:07 ... the CDM will display the frame without passing it back to the browser 17:21:13 ... in the current deployed and likely to be deployed stuff 17:21:19 ... it won't be pushed back to the browser 17:21:25 mark: there is a class of content 17:21:35 ... if the browser wants to push it back 17:21:44 mark_vickers: another way to look at that 17:21:53 ... is to say that the media stack and the content decryption module 17:21:56 ... are abstract 17:22:06 ... and some parts are handled separately from the browser 17:22:23 chaals: one of the things that could happen 17:22:35 ... the requirement is "don't expose an unencrypted frame stream" 17:22:38 q+ 17:22:43 ... that causes encrypted the content to not happen 17:22:48 ... it's up to the platforms that use this 17:22:53 ... that could be handled by the browser 17:22:58 ... in some agreement 17:23:05 ... where the browser will not expose encrypted frames 17:23:12 ... or it could be handled by a plugin 17:23:19 mark: the Media Stack and CDM could be combined 17:23:25 ... and the browser has two playback engines 17:23:33 chaals: what do things do today? 17:23:50 s/mark:/acolwell:/ 17:24:05 ... or in stuff you could ship some time this year 17:24:10 ... is it all, the CDM will handle everything? 17:24:18 ... is there anything you could deploy that would not match that model? 17:24:23 joesteele: for Flash 17:24:26 ... where we have access to DRM 17:24:33 ... it's essentially where you describe 17:24:38 ... part of the media stack is all combined 17:24:48 ... we're not using the element, it's an tag 17:24:56 ... we're not passing bytes back to the JS layer 17:25:03 ... you can't modify the bytes 17:25:07 ack plh 17:25:22 plh: you wouldn't be able to apply CSS transforms to a video? 17:25:35 ddorwin: you should in some cases be able to do a transform 17:25:51 ... if it comes back to the browser 17:25:55 chaals: that won't arrise 17:26:08 ... Opera doesn't think that you should not have content protection 17:26:16 ... but we should recognize that the limitation we're having 17:26:24 ... you won't have the power of the web 17:26:32 ... until frames go up into the browser rendering pipeline 17:26:34 q+ 17:26:43 ... or pass the browser into to the media rendering pipeline 17:26:57 mark: there's a class of content where it would be ok to pass the content to the browser 17:27:06 BobLund has joined #html-wg 17:27:09 ... there's a class of content where it really needs to be handled in the rendering pipeline 17:27:15 ... there are hundreds of thousands 17:27:21 ... where there's a media pipeline 17:27:27 ... that render pipeline is there 17:27:37 ... they don't provide browsers the power to do what browsers can do 17:27:47 ... maybe you can pick a region of the screen 17:27:57 ... there'd be work to do to enable what you have in html 17:28:07 adrianba: two comments 17:28:20 ... 1. thinking about whether/how we could apply parts of the web platform 17:28:24 ... are good requirements to gather 17:28:30 ... so we could feedback it into the discussion 17:28:44 ... in IE when we're 17:28:46 rniwa has joined #html-wg 17:28:54 ... developing these new graphics capabilities 17:29:02 ... we're trying to push them down through the stack 17:29:04 ... in IE 17:29:11 ... one of the things we're doing is pushing those things 17:29:19 ... so we can have a secure graphics pipleine 17:29:24 s/pipleine/pipeline/ 17:29:33 ... where you can push transformations down into the hardware 17:29:44 ... so it's possible to do this, without removing large parts of the platform 17:29:54 chaals: an issue for a company like opera 17:30:01 ... is doing that on Windows platform devices is one thing 17:30:08 ... doing that on a pile of different platforms is another 17:30:16 ... the situation where Flash is defacto 17:30:25 ... is great, until you get to a device where flash doesn't actually work 17:30:28 ... that's a trick problem 17:30:35 ... knowing the kind of distribution 17:30:39 ... being aware of the requirement 17:30:45 ... to make this feasible on all platforms 17:30:59 ... to handle open-WebM decoder 17:31:02 ... on the OLPC 17:31:21 + +1.650.576.aabb 17:31:22 ... we have an ogg theora decoder, and it can handle a calculator 17:31:22 - +1.650.576.aabb 17:31:22 + +1.650.576.aabb 17:31:32 ...being able to put things on a platform is important 17:31:39 s/...being/... being/ 17:31:50 ... mozilla has wondered if they could implement this in practice 17:31:55 ... on the one hand, we're their competition 17:31:59 ... and we'd like to eat their lunch 17:32:07 ... but it's important to us that mozilla can make this work 17:32:16 mark_vickers: i believe and others can tell me if i'm wrong 17:32:22 ... there are 3 models for how this can be chunked 17:32:28 ... 1. all in browser (CDM in browser) 17:32:38 ... 2. software talks to external software API 17:32:44 - +1.650.576.aabb 17:32:46 ... 3. browser talks to system api 17:32:55 ... there could be combinations of those 17:33:05 ... a lot of the discussion is about that api 17:33:16 ... there's embedded security on chips 17:33:24 ... i think system apis will become more common 17:33:31 ... in a sense, it will be outside w3c 17:33:39 ... on the other hand, maybe it's a joint effort 17:33:54 ... in the same way that HTTP is a joint effort with IETF 17:34:00 ... maybe the web could drive those apis 17:34:16 ... I think we have all the players, both on the CDM and Browser side at W3C 17:34:25 ddorwin: there's opportunity to do this outside the W3C 17:34:35 ... the major players are represented and outside 17:34:45 ... there may be devices without a secure pipeline 17:34:53 paulc: i get really nervous when plh starts to pace 17:35:01 ... it's one thing to read someone's body language 17:35:12 ... it's another when our Domain Lead starts to walk the floor 17:35:19 ... an chaals is up too 17:35:31 bryan: I understand the idea of pushing the content to be rendered in a protected box 17:35:36 ... how do you integrate 17:35:42 ... from UCs i see in the doc 17:35:46 ... how do I do captions? 17:35:56 ... do i have access to this display box? 17:35:59 ... can i overlay it? 17:36:03 ... are there limitations? 17:36:09 ddorwin: i don't know about in band captions 17:36:16 ... certainly for just a tracks file 17:36:23 bryan: i'm talking about things 17:36:33 ... a UC in Web and TV is i can find captions anywhere 17:36:36 ... crowd sourced 17:36:47 chaals: we'd expect in any of these scenarios 17:36:54 ... that has a composite over screen region 17:37:00 ... even in the worst possible scenario 17:37:05 ... in terms of losing Transforms 17:37:14 ... we expect to always be able to add captions 17:37:21 ddorwin: the most basic is 2 layers 17:37:27 q? 17:37:31 ack bryan 17:37:34 adrianba: that's QoI 17:37:39 q+ 17:37:44 ... if you have a media pipeline that doesn't allow composition 17:37:47 ... that would be a problem 17:37:52 ... most services we see today 17:38:02 ... support the basic ability to overlay something onto part of a screen 17:38:05 ... which is how you'd do captions 17:38:07 ack Mark_Vickers 17:38:14 Mark_Vickers: accessibility access in a standard way 17:38:21 ... is the number one goal for why we're interested in this 17:38:31 ... we've put a lot of effort into making this api open 17:38:39 ... we have a standard api for getting embedded caption data 17:38:43 ... and standard controls 17:38:52 ... the notion is that these standard things would work 17:38:58 ... which they do not through a plugin api 17:39:05 ... that's the major driving goal 17:39:15 ... we'll have to work through all of these cases 17:39:39 ddorwin: there may be platforms of hardware with limitations 17:39:43 ... and we may need to work through that 17:39:54 mark: this is very much an implementation issue 17:40:00 ... we're not proposing to specify restrictions 17:40:07 ... as far as the spec is concerned, everything is possible 17:40:22 ... similar to how OpenGL works 17:40:30 mark: application restrictions 17:40:37 ... you might want to expose 17:40:47 ... but i don't think we'll know that until we get further along the path 17:41:04 bryan: does that mean we won't know it's possible to overlay captions until we have implementations 17:41:06 adrianba: no 17:41:16 ... we're saying there's no reason why this will be a problem 17:41:22 ... the spec is designed to allow that 17:41:29 ... we know there are implementations that support overlaying captions 17:41:47 ... but we don't know how common it will be for implementers to hit restrictions in devices 17:41:56 ... if that's a problem, then we need to look at that 17:42:01 ... but we don't know that will be a problem 17:42:10 chaals: what makes we confident 17:42:18 ... is that TV has crap accessibility 17:42:29 ... but they've done this quite well with a lot less 17:42:33 ... we need to have requirements 17:42:45 ... i wanted to pick back up on Mark_Vickers 's point 17:42:49 ... on standardizing apis 17:42:54 Q+ 17:42:56 ... i think it's valuable to get that convergence 17:43:10 ... so when someone wants come along and build a browser that can play video content 17:43:20 ... if a significant amount of video content on the web is protected 17:43:23 ... then standardizing that is good 17:43:30 ... whether that's entirely in W3C or somewhere else 17:43:33 q+ 17:43:43 ... we'd like to ensure it's done w/ W3C well in the loop 17:43:53 paulc: chaals, you've said it's possible to do it with someone else 17:43:59 ... can you enumerate that other side? 17:44:00 chaals: no 17:44:09 paulc: that's fine 17:44:16 chaals: how do you handle signalling 17:44:20 ... you have some thing playing 17:44:27 ... the browser Open Media Stack 17:44:32 ... and browser with Closed Media Stack 17:44:40 ... and running your captions through the Open Media Stack 17:44:44 ... you need signalling between the two 17:44:50 adrianba: you mean for timelines? 17:44:52 chaals: yes 17:45:01 adrianba: i think timelines work the same way it does generally for the media stak 17:45:04 s/stak/stack/ 17:45:19 ... an advantage of this approach is you still manipulate an element on the page the same way 17:45:26 ... events get fired should be the same 17:45:33 chaals: i.e. "yes" 17:45:59 ddorwin: there's already cases where hardware is decoding/demuxing 17:46:14 JF: you were talking about captions as text overlays 17:46:23 ... what about supplemental audio? 17:46:26 ... same principal? 17:46:30 adrianba: yes, 17:46:37 joesteele: along the same lines 17:46:50 ... if i wanted to do ad insertion, that should work seemlessly with this proposal? 17:46:52 ack JF 17:46:53 adrianba: right 17:47:10 ... we've tried to ensure that the media-source proposal and media-encryption proposal are orthogonal and compatible 17:47:16 ... we've tried to ensure you can control the timeline 17:47:25 ... as that data gets processed 17:47:29 kennyluck has joined #html-wg 17:47:32 ... if it's encrypted, the encrypted part needs to fire 17:47:37 ... one of the things we need to think through 17:47:41 ... and acolwell mentioned 17:47:43 ... around segments 17:47:53 ... another is understanding where in the pipeline decryption happens 17:48:01 ... is this something decryption from a transport 17:48:06 ... or when you're about to render it 17:48:10 ... there are nuances there 17:48:20 ... and i think implementation experience will help 17:48:30 acolwell: Media Source says that 17:48:35 ... for Text Tracks 17:48:45 ... they're implemented in chrome independent of the pipeline 17:48:52 ... using CurrentTime 17:48:57 ... as long as you have CurrentTime 17:49:00 ... you can do it 17:49:05 chaals: you're getting CurrentTime out of the stack 17:49:07 ... alright 17:49:16 ... glenn 's timeline question, this is slated for HTML4.1? 17:49:23 mark: encrypted stuff? 17:49:33 ... this is high priority for the media stack in chrome 17:49:41 ddorwin: we're working on it in webkit 17:49:51 ... we know there are open options 17:49:55 ... seeking feedback 17:50:01 ... talked to DRM providers 17:50:08 ... still lots of opportunity for feedback 17:50:11 ... this is the first roun 17:50:15 s/roun/round/ 17:50:18 q? 17:50:26 q- 17:50:35 paulc: i want to watch the clock 17:50:43 ... we were planning on a coffee break 17:51:11 acolwell: as we progress on this 17:51:23 ... DRM providers and Content owners will be motivated to integrate with this 17:51:32 ... Content providers will leverage against DRM providers 17:51:37 ... we don't have to solve that 17:51:41 ... Content wants to be on the web 17:51:49 adrianba: a scope comment 17:51:52 ... similar to media source 17:51:55 ... proposal 17:52:12 ... we've collaborated on what we think is a good model for enabling encrypted media in the web platform 17:52:20 ... as with the other proposal, we've called out open issues 17:52:28 ... i think the scope of the proposal is fairly complete 17:52:41 ... and is a good indication of what we think needs to be built 17:52:56 ... i wanted to point to Mark_Vickers 's email to the list indicating we'd be open to alternative proposals 17:53:00 ... but we think this is a good model 17:53:06 mark: as acolwell noted 17:53:11 ... as a content provider 17:53:21 ... we want it to be available everywhere 17:53:26 ... while we can't dictate apis to people 17:53:31 ... the incentives are there 17:53:38 Mark_Vickers: in the past 17:53:42 ... the practice was 17:53:48 ... content was made available encrypted 17:53:52 ... and paired to a single system 17:53:58 ... obviously an issue of leverage 17:54:05 ... there's a new model innovated by UltraViolet 17:54:13 ... they support multiple decryption models, maybe 6-10 17:54:17 ... and the service supports multiple 17:54:21 ... the client chooses one 17:54:30 ... maybe baked into OS 17:54:38 ... or based on costs/models 17:54:50 ... and that leaves a bit of burden on providers 17:55:00 chaals: i hope so 17:55:09 ... having seen these things played out 17:55:17 ... "in the best possible world, you're right" 17:55:22 ... to Mark_Vickers, mark, yeah 17:55:31 ... places where i tend to go, it isn't quite as smooth as that 17:55:36 ... there are big lumps in how that plays out 17:55:42 ... there are real pressures to make it happen 17:55:45 ... what i said before 17:55:54 ... it's important this stuff is available on the platforms people have 17:56:05 ... multiple mechanism ecosystem is important 17:56:09 ... if it doesn't work, 17:56:20 Mark_Vickers: UltraViolet is deployed and proven to work in the field 17:56:34 adrianba: as we went through 17:56:46 ... we tried to make sure this API supports the common encryption model 17:56:54 ... the way negotiation works for key sysem 17:56:58 s/sysem/system/ 17:57:09 ... the 3 places key system touches 17:57:13 ... media file supports multiple 17:57:17 ... UA supports multiple 17:57:23 ... UA+media has choice 17:57:27 ... JS can decide 17:57:45 ... so web app can build in cost preference 17:58:00 johnsim: John Simmons, Microsoft 17:58:08 ... commenting on UltraViolet, PlayReady 17:58:25 ... UltraViolet's mechanism was developed by PlayReady at Microsoft and proposed by them in 2009 17:58:32 ... originally they weren't going down that road 17:58:38 ... Microsoft + PlayReady team at MS 17:58:49 ... sought a stack that supports interoperable encoding/playback 17:58:54 ... speaks to our philosophy 17:58:59 ... of not creating vertical stack 17:59:08 ... but promoting online video and interoperability 17:59:16 ... one of the reasons we're Bullish about participating in this 17:59:23 ... it's part of our vision of DRM interoperability 17:59:31 ... throughout the stack will enable large growt 17:59:35 s/growt/growth/ 17:59:40 ... to address chaals 's concern 17:59:49 ... our vision is the interoperability you're talking about 17:59:56 chaals: my vision is World Domination for Opera 18:00:04 [ Break ] 18:01:23 jarek has joined #html-wg 18:05:02 hkasanuki has joined #html-wg 18:15:52 paulc: we want to wrap up 18:16:00 ... and we need to decide how to reconicile 18:16:05 ... any remaining questions 18:16:10 s/reconicile/reconcile/ 18:16:37 janina: what we're hearing is good from the accessibility point of view 18:16:45 ... accessibility, ability to overlay 18:16:53 ... what were flash points in the past 18:16:56 ... sound very workable 18:17:06 paulc: i know the TF had high level concerns 18:17:17 ... but what you're hearing is very positive 18:17:31 janina: XX and YY met at TPAC 18:17:35 ... and we're pretty satisfied 18:17:57 s/XX and YY/Web and TV IG and Protocols and Formats WG/ 18:18:05 paulc: and you're a cochair of PF? 18:18:12 janina: i'm a cochair of PF 18:18:18 Mark_Vickers: I'm a cochair of Web and TV 18:18:22 ... as is yosuke 18:18:34 Topic: Encrypted Demo 18:18:54 ... what's added are 3 methods and 18:18:59 ... we've extended canPlayType 18:19:15 ... example code ban be this much 18:19:19 s/ban/can/ 18:19:21 -> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html#extensions Extension APIs 18:19:29 ... fairly simple 18:19:35 ... for the demo 18:19:45 ... an official Chrome build with flags enabled 18:19:45 -> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html#examples Code Examples 18:19:52 ... an extension of what acolwell showed 18:20:01 ... you try to play an encrypted video 18:20:06 [ Error dialog ] 18:20:12 ddorwin: same page 18:20:24 ... you can see the track element is working in this demo 18:20:29 ... and it's adaptive 18:20:41 s/... what's/ddorwin: what's/ 18:20:51 ... what you missed is key needed 18:20:55 ... and key exchange 18:21:33 plh: you know you, you don't need encryption to see this video 18:21:35 [ Laughter ] 18:21:41 ddorwin: yes, it's also using ClearKey 18:22:08 RRSAgent, draft minutes 18:22:08 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/04-html-wg-minutes.html timeless 18:22:30 Topic: CfC Create Media Task Force 18:22:59 mark has joined #html-wg 18:23:27 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Apr/0007.html 18:23:32 paulc: i want to point out, when this was sent out, we only had one of these proposals, the second one we did today 18:23:46 ... if people want to work on this, but don't want to disrupt this WG 18:23:51 ... maybe we should have a TF 18:23:55 [clearKey is a demo DRM that you can look inside...] 18:24:07 s|http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Apr/0007.html|-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Apr/0007.html CfC Create Media Task Force| 18:24:21 paulc: since the request came out of Web and TV IG 18:24:29 ... we wanted to note they had to join this WG 18:24:37 ... there's be a new ML 18:24:54 ... while we create a TF, decisions are still made by the WG 18:25:06 -> http://downloads.webmproject.org/adaptive-encrypted-demo/adaptive/dash-player.html Encrypted Adaptive Demo (from previous topic) 18:25:08 ... we'll have facilitators, for Accessibility, that's janina, and MikeSmith 18:25:22 ... an initial point of contact 18:25:30 ... report back every 2 weeks 18:25:38 ... TF could draft scope, initial work plan 18:25:50 ... in this case, Encrypted and probably also media source 18:26:00 ... feedback we got 18:26:07 ... some people didn't like the direction on Encryption 18:26:13 ... and some people didn't like the name 18:26:24 ... I chose it for the short email: public-html-media@w3.org 18:26:40 ... i think we're in an interesting point in the Timeline of the WG 18:26:50 ... maybe we just keep these proposals at the WG level 18:26:57 q+ 18:26:58 ... we have bugzilla components for both 18:27:17 ... we could morph Thursday meetings from just status on the HTML5 document 18:27:28 ... to having discussions about the Media items at the meetings 18:27:34 ... i'm open to other suggestions 18:27:40 ... we got pushback on CfC 18:27:50 ... chairs view it's in our domain on how to go forward 18:27:54 ... looking for feedback 18:27:56 ack chaals 18:28:13 chaals: i don't think we need another TV+Web IG within HTML WG 18:28:17 ... they've done a good job 18:28:23 ... we'd like the work done at the level of the WG 18:28:33 ... if we get back to the flame storm when this was first presented 18:28:44 ... then a TF is probably an administrative necessity to make it work 18:28:48 ... that would be unfortunate 18:29:05 ... just because you have most of the people 18:29:14 ... for encryption and media stream 18:29:21 ... shouldn't be that you put them together in a TF 18:29:28 ... that would be administration over sense 18:29:35 ... TFs should be scoped on tasks 18:29:48 ... just because they interact/interrelate are separate 18:29:59 Mark_Vickers: i don't want to limit participation 18:30:08 ... everything should be above board and visible 18:30:15 ... there are people who may want to get involved 18:30:26 ... who have media expertise 18:30:33 ... who won't have expertise in HTML 18:30:41 ... we'll need a F2F on this subject 18:30:47 ... w/o causing an HTML WG F2F 18:30:50 ... on media source 18:30:55 ... it can go either way 18:31:03 ... but again, i think there's some in common 18:31:03 q+ to say HTML can hold f2f meetings on specific parts of what it is doing... 18:31:19 ... there will be conversations where we'll be talking about both proposals 18:31:25 ... no matter how we go 18:31:31 adrianba: i agree with what Mark_Vickers said 18:31:39 ... i proposed the TF on a WG call 18:31:48 ... after we saw the discussion on the encrypted media proposal 18:31:55 ... it appeared some people wanted to not work on it 18:32:02 ... there are others who wanted to work on this 18:32:10 ... but didn't want to contribute on other areas 18:32:18 ... i'm not wedded to a TF/no TF 18:32:25 ... i'd like to see the work proceed in the WG 18:32:35 ... i'd like people to be able to focus on this area 18:32:47 ... we want to make sure there's machinery to have discussion on this 18:32:55 q? 18:32:58 paulc: we're looking for input on how to process the encrypted media proposal 18:33:02 q? 18:33:04 ... and the media stream proposals 18:33:17 ... chairs are looking for feedback on how to process these two 18:33:23 ... looking for as wide as possible 18:33:42 tantek: has anyone suggested a CG instead of a TF? 18:33:47 ... to be more nimble 18:33:54 paulc: no, they submitted it directly to the HTML WG 18:33:58 ack chaals 18:33:58 chaals, you wanted to say HTML can hold f2f meetings on specific parts of what it is doing... 18:34:07 chaals: in webapps, we don't have any formal TFs 18:34:16 ... but DOM3 events was done on a separate ML 18:34:23 ... with their own Teleconfs 18:34:29 ... dedicated to DOM3 events 18:34:31 ... weekly 18:34:40 ... when the WG wasn't having calls at all 18:34:48 ... process is what we create when we behave badly 18:35:06 ... if we behave sufficiently nicely without having to create formal process 18:35:08 ... it's good 18:35:11 paulc: alright 18:35:22 ... to be transparent, chairs had dinner last night 18:35:30 ... do you want to know what we had or what we talked about? 18:35:32 [ Laughter ] 18:35:44 paulc: mjs took us to a place that was a favorite dinnertime spot in the Netscape days 18:35:49 ... in true browser tradition 18:35:50 Arno_ has joined #html-wg 18:35:55 ... La Fiesta, we went back to our roots 18:36:01 ... chairs agree whole-heartedly 18:36:16 ... wanting to change the culture and mode/mood 18:36:25 ... and we want to encourage exactly that on those items 18:36:40 ... i was going to ask chaals if you had an opinion on a separate ML 18:36:45 ... other opinions here? 18:36:50 ... a. in WG 18:36:58 ... b. in WG w/ separate meetings/F2F 18:37:13 ... ironic because Cochairs+plh were talking about more regular F2F meetings 18:37:19 ... possibly a meeting between now and TPAC 18:37:39 ... plh + paulc: took the suggestion from chaals and myself 18:37:50 ... the hoops we had to go through to find meeting space were difficult 18:38:03 ... six months in advance is easy, 3 months is quite difficult 18:38:12 ... c. separate email list 18:38:17 ... d. separate telconf 18:38:22 ... we have bugzilla components 18:38:29 ... WG members could opt in 18:38:42 ... principal: they're WG meetings, anyone from outside 18:38:48 ... Josh_Soref is an observer 18:39:10 Josh_Soref: I stopped scribing Web and TV because i couldn't call in w/o being a member 18:39:18 janina: Mark_Vickers mentioned 18:39:27 ... some people would be coming w/ expertise not based on processing markup 18:39:42 paulc: chairs always have the scope to bring in experts to bleed ideas/items off 18:39:55 ... the place we have to be careful is when people make contributions from a WG perspective 18:39:57 cyns has joined #html-wg 18:40:08 ... if we have this dialog, we'd want to make sure existing issues, raised points 18:40:13 ... if we'd want to invite experts 18:40:19 ... on other options of feasibility 18:40:30 Mark_Vickers: I wasn't suggesting invited experts/non members 18:40:33 ... people should be members 18:40:42 ... WG or TF, there should be clear meeting times 18:40:49 ... so people with interest in these areas 18:41:11 ... could only spend time on this 18:41:17 chaals: +1 on "these people should be members" 18:41:28 paulc: always useful to have the club decide whether it wants to have guests 18:41:33 ... or force people to join the club 18:41:42 ... taking silence as affirmation 18:41:47 ... we should look to create a ML 18:41:58 Mark_Vickers: separate ML 18:42:05 JF: as an accessibility TF 18:42:15 ... we have a public-html-a11y@ 18:42:19 ... that's worked for us 18:42:30 BobLund: +1 18:42:35 joesteele: clarification 18:42:40 ... I agree a separate ML 18:42:45 ... it would still be public 18:42:46 s/+1 on "these/+1 - noting particularly the "these/ 18:43:11 ... we switched away from prefix: www-*@ to public-* 18:43:18 s/... we/paulc: we/ 18:43:24 anne: "This discussion" 18:43:37 paulc: we were talking about Encrypted Media and Media Sources 18:44:08 ... and topical F2F meeting 18:44:15 ... where we could make progress 18:44:23 ... if we tried to schedule a F2F in Aug or Sep 18:44:32 ... would people be interested in trying to advance the work 18:44:36 +1 18:44:47 chaals: we don't really like the blending of all the media stuff as one thing 18:44:52 ... separate audiences 18:44:57 ... we can live with separate lists 18:45:02 ... we can live with separate meetings 18:45:08 ... expect us to join for what we care about 18:45:17 ... and leaving things we don't care about ourselves 18:45:20 ... and similar for others 18:45:29 anne: in particular, streaming seems far less controversial 18:45:41 paulc: what do you mean by separate? 18:45:50 ... group doesn't seem interested in TF 18:45:55 ... do you want 2 new email lists 18:45:58 ... or tagged messages 18:46:05 chaals: if we behave nicely 18:46:10 ... if it's easy to figure out 18:46:21 ... so long as that works nicely, that's ok 18:46:33 paulc: if we had a F2F 18:46:35 ... 2 days 18:46:39 ... encrypted on day 1 18:46:43 ... sources on day 2 18:46:46 ... would that work? 18:46:49 chaals: yes 18:46:57 paulc: you're asking for work allocation split 18:47:03 ... for phone calls, which call for which item 18:47:08 chaals: i don't think it was just us 18:47:17 tantek: i want to echo what chaals is saying 18:47:25 ... i think mozilla is also interested in media source streaming 18:47:35 ... and what anne says, that seems fairly uncontroverisal 18:47:49 s/uncontroverisal/uncontroversial/ 18:48:00 ... i'd say media stream source should be a core part of HTML.next 18:48:06 ... the other part i don't think we could get consensus on 18:48:12 adrianba: I want to support what chaals was asking for 18:48:23 ... we want to enable people to participate in the things they're interested in 18:48:35 ... as a general work practice, having that discipline makes life easier for everyone 18:48:47 Mark_Vickers: listening to chaals and tantek , i'm more convinced 18:48:54 ... of handling the two things differently 18:48:59 ... source has been out for about a year 18:49:04 ... it's not as much of controversy 18:49:10 ... as level of development 18:49:19 ... i don't think it needs as much intense meetings 18:49:31 ... for encryption, i think we need meetings much sooner 18:49:37 ... and another one shortly after 18:49:53 ... i think they may need to be handled differently 18:49:58 ... i hope we can have this soon 18:50:04 acolwell: i agree with adrianba 18:50:11 ... we want to be as inclusive for both proposals 18:50:16 ... we, google, want to get this done 18:50:28 ... we wanted to keep them separate so we could evolve them separately 18:50:41 mark: i don't have an opinion on process 18:50:43 ... but decide soon 18:50:56 ... what does it mean for something to be a core part of HTML.next? 18:51:06 paulc: i put this item on agenda before charter discussion 18:51:19 ... chairs and team would like to go down the wiki items and say 18:51:28 ... should these things be covered by scope of the charter for the WG 18:51:39 mark: if it isn't in the Charter, it isn't worked on the WG? 18:51:45 paulc: not without ReChartering 18:51:51 ... back to Mark_Vickers about sooner 18:52:14 ... the reason i suggested Sep was splitting the difference between now and TPAC 18:52:21 ... what about a F2F at the end of june? 18:52:27 ... and plh's blood is boiling 18:52:34 there really seems to be different constraints, interests, urgency for Media src/streams vs. DRM. 18:52:35 ... talking about something for which we don't have a host? 18:52:46 ... especially for Europeans who take August off 18:52:53 ... where North Americans lose the first week 18:53:00 ... of September to vacation 18:53:06 ... but I want to make it clear we need a host 18:53:15 Mark_Vickers: there are 3 authors to this proposal 18:53:24 ... we'd like to be part of a more intense group 18:53:31 ... but i don't want to form a more exclusionary group 18:53:39 ... i'd like to create more high bandwidth involvement 18:53:43 ... but not forced to wait 18:53:55 chaals: i understand 2 weeks 18:54:04 ... we flew 3 people from Europe to the meeting 18:54:08 ... that was expensive 18:54:15 ... if you want Soon, we could do Beijing 18:54:22 ... or we could do Guteborg 18:54:27 ... and we wouldn't object to short notice 18:54:29 q+ 18:54:38 ... but this is W3C 18:54:45 ... and part of this is dealing with the world 18:54:55 paulc: we're on the west cosat 18:54:58 s/cosat/coast/ 18:55:03 ... we intentionally picked this 18:55:08 ... for good attendance 18:55:26 ... we're tentatively in Europe Oct 31-Nov 3 18:55:41 I think decoupling Media src/streams vs. DRM would benefit *both*, i.e. permit the folks that want to urgently meet quickly on DRM to go ahead and do so in a more agile fashion, and reduce the number of folks to coordinate with for meeting time/place preferences etc. 18:55:50 ... for TPAC 18:55:56 ... the general model is that Web Apps would meet Mon Tue 18:56:01 woohoo - TPAC during Halloween again! 18:56:04 ... and HTML would meet Thu Fri 18:56:11 ... the pattern since 2009 18:56:18 ... Plenary on Wed 18:56:34 ... some have W3C process in cache 18:56:43 ... usual process in W3C is 8 weeks notice 18:56:47 ... that doesn't preclude us 18:56:48 glenn has joined #html-wg 18:56:52 -> http://www.w3.org/2012/10/TPAC/ TPAC 2012 18:56:56 ... from having separate topical meetings by phone 18:56:58 q? 18:57:10 ... plh: anything to add about a F2F 18:57:15 plh: everything has been said 18:57:26 ... would be concern about meeting F2F every two weeks 18:57:34 ... a lot of work on participants 18:57:36 won't be present at afternoon's session, but cox votes +1 for including Encrypted Media Extension in "core html.next" deliverables 18:57:42 ack me 18:57:52 Josh_Soref: this meeting painful for me to get to 18:58:44 acolwell: trying to schedule F2F now may be premature 18:58:53 ... does it make sense to see where it goes before? 18:59:00 chaals: Josh_Soref isn't the only person 18:59:05 ... there are people not in this room 18:59:13 ... for the same reason it was painful for him 18:59:18 ... you need to plan with a pile of lead time 18:59:22 ... and you'll hit Summer 18:59:27 ... two months of misery 18:59:35 ... Americans don't work in July 18:59:40 ... Europeans don't work in August 18:59:45 ... from a practical perspective 18:59:51 ... we should figure it out in the next week 19:00:00 ... if you want to do it before you get buried in summer 19:00:06 paulc: it was strictly getting rooms 19:00:08 ... which was the problem 19:00:14 ... which is why we had to change dates 19:00:20 ... as the person paying the bills 19:00:22 ... it isn't cheap 19:00:35 ... i even have to pay for security 19:00:49 ... it's less expensive doing it here than in a hotel 19:01:08 chaals: i can get dirt cheap meeting space in Morocco 19:01:18 +1 for Morrocco 19:01:22 paulc: rubys, do you think we have enough feedback from the WG? 19:01:25 rubys: I think so 19:01:26 agenda: http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/May2012F2FMeeting 19:01:28 s/Morrocco/Morocco/ 19:01:30 s/sam:/rubys:/g 19:01:34 RRSAgent, make minutes 19:01:34 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/04-html-wg-minutes.html MikeSmith 19:01:46 paulc: the rest of you, please corner us 1-on-1 19:01:53 ... if anyone wants to host, please let us know directly 19:02:10 glenn: presumably this wouldn't be the whole 19:02:26 paulc: at least one company indicated a willingness to divide focus 19:02:34 ... i wouldn't be surprised if we divided the time 19:02:40 ... if we needed a room for at least 30 people 19:02:51 ... especially if Mark_Vickers indicated others might get engaged 19:03:06 ... Duey - Truman phenomena 19:03:22 glenn: Cox can volunteer meeting space in Atlanta 19:03:42 BobLund: CableLabs can offer space in Denver 19:03:52 Mark_Vickers: Comcast can offer space in Philadelphia 19:04:05 mark: are the chairs saying we're going to work on these two items in ernest? 19:04:12 paulc: I'm not hearing dissent at all 19:04:19 ... i'd like to agree on the order for after lunch 19:04:21 s/ernest/earnest/ 19:04:47 ... everyone put up your hands if you'll be hear at 5pm 19:04:52 kennyluck has joined #html-wg 19:05:11 ... raise your hand if you'll be here at 4pm 19:05:17 ... raise your hand if you'll be here at 3pm 19:05:25 ... looks like we're losing people at lunch 19:05:32 ... chaals can scribe 19:05:37 ... proposal: we move agenda down 19:05:54 ... nice segway doing charter after lunch 19:06:17 s/segway/segue/ 19:09:55 [ Lunch ] 19:10:56 rubys has joined #html-wg 19:11:57 tantek has joined #html-wg 19:19:27 jarek has joined #html-wg 19:29:30 mjs has joined #html-wg 19:35:44 Petr has joined #html-wg 19:43:11 JF has joined #html-wg 19:43:15 Zakim, BobLund has left F2F 19:43:15 timeless, I was not aware that BobLund was in F2F 19:43:21 Zakim, BobLund has entered F2F 19:43:21 +BobLund; got it 19:43:23 Zakim, BobLund has left F2F 19:43:23 -BobLund; got it 19:45:47 Arno_ has joined #html-wg 20:05:50 acolwell has joined #html-wg 20:08:32 Topic: Charter v.Next 20:08:56 tantek has joined #html-wg 20:09:06 plh: some of you are lucky enough not to be familiar with how we work 20:09:10 Wonsuk has joined #html-wg 20:09:23 ... when people look to joining the group 20:09:28 ... you're committing to RF agreements 20:09:32 ... so you go to the lawyers 20:09:40 ... if i put a charter that said "you can do whatever you want" 20:09:43 tantek_ has joined #html-wg 20:09:47 ... your lawyers will kill me right away 20:09:52 http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter 20:09:52 ... i put a list of things in the wiki 20:10:05 ... of things we could put in the charter 20:10:18 ... i'm only interested in In-Scope or Out-Of-Scope for the WG 20:10:27 ... it doesn't affect how many Specs 20:10:44 ... of course, we try to draw the charter to give freedom for the WG to, e.g. add a new html element 20:10:45 icaaq has joined #html-wg 20:10:59 ... this morning we had a discussion on Media Source and Encrypted Media extensions 20:11:04 ... and you guys agreed to make a TF 20:11:08 No! 20:11:15 plh: oh, a ML 20:11:24 ... can we assume you're ok with adding that to the charter 20:11:37 tantek: is there a methodology for what is in HTML WG v. Web Apps? 20:11:45 plh: i don't think there's a clear methodology 20:11:49 ... sometimes it's historically 20:11:57 s/historically/for historical reasons/ 20:12:04 tantek: let me put forth a straw proposal 20:12:12 ... if something makes sense in a more focused WG 20:12:17 ... maybe it can be in that WG 20:12:31 plh: I don't think anything in the proposal... 20:12:38 ... except for Web Intents 20:12:41 myakura has joined #html-wg 20:12:41 tantek: sure 20:12:54 plh: I know hiro_away wanted to add http+aes/https+aes schemes 20:12:59 s/hiro_away/Hixie/ 20:13:03 ... any objection to that? 20:13:17 paulc: you have that under media 20:13:27 ddorwin: I think it's generic 20:13:44 anne: it was in the proposals for Encrypted Media extensions 20:13:55 plh: i didn't hear someone say "we want it out-of-scope" 20:14:01 anne: that would seem kind of lame 20:14:03 paulc: why? 20:14:21 anne: it was a proposal in context for Encrypted Media 20:14:22 to clarify, it was proposed as an alternative, not "in the proposals" 20:14:24 ... so why exclude? 20:14:37 plh: then there was MikeSmith 's list 20:14:53 ... one of the problems we're having is that we have other WGs extending HTML 20:15:09 ... is there anything in that list that we'd rather do in the HTML WG? 20:15:19 ... e.g., we rejected the ping= attribute for HTML5 20:15:28 ... people should be free to bring it up for .Next 20:15:32 ... two things to consider now: 20:15:36 ... Web Components 20:15:38 ... Web Intents 20:15:42 ... they're currently in Web Apps 20:15:59 ... at some point, Web Apps, was like "it seems outside our area, more into HTML than into Web Apps" 20:16:07 ... should we add Web Components into scope for this WG 20:16:15 ... or should we let Web Apps deal with it? 20:16:17 q? 20:16:34 anne: HTML Parser will most likely change for Web Components 20:16:47 ... if you want to keep defining HTML Parser, then you should add Web Components to Scope 20:16:54 chaals: The Web Apps charter says that 20:17:11 ... ~ a "low barrier process to move stuff from one group to the other" 20:17:28 ... the fact that you have to change the parser should be severable from defining Web Components 20:17:35 ... HTML WG defines the Parsing 20:17:43 ... i'm not sure you need a tight joint deliverable 20:17:51 plh: the Parser is already in Scope 20:17:58 chaals: we should ensure that the Parser is in Scope 20:18:14 anne: Web Components would tie into certain specific elements of the Parser 20:18:26 plh: does the deliverable need to be listed in the HTML spec? 20:18:39 anne: I, personally, think all HTML elements should be listed in the HTML spec 20:18:47 paulc: let's put it in the HTML WG charter 20:18:53 anne: it's unclear how we'd organize it 20:19:14 plh: i'd like to avoid the HTML WG later saying "let's put it in the HTML spec" 20:19:20 ... and someone says "it's not in Charter" 20:19:25 chaals: let's put it in the charter 20:19:36 mjs: for specific elements 20:19:46 ... it might be debatable where things should be developed 20:19:59 ... but perhaps we should have a catchall item in charter 20:20:16 ... to say anything that involves changes to the parser 20:20:29 ... could be in scope either as a joint deliverable or sole deliverable 20:20:39 plh: i'm fine with something 20:20:44 ... that says elements or attributes 20:21:02 paulc: "it's in the scope of the HTML WG to define the syntax of elements and attributes within the HTML elements" 20:21:15 mjs: as long as it says "this is a non exhaustive list of items" 20:21:22 paulc: "The following is a set of examples" 20:21:30 plh: would web intents fall into that? 20:21:37 MikeSmith: Web Intents is only one element 20:21:43 ... and it wouldn't involve parser changes 20:21:53 paulc: who does that require coordination with? 20:22:00 Josh_Soref: DAP+WebApps 20:22:17 q? 20:22:18 paulc: as a general principle, should the charter indicate who is currently working on items? 20:22:20 plh: yes 20:22:36 paulc: so we should include references to the other group's + deliverables 20:22:43 plh: i gather it's the same for the others 20:22:55 ... we'd use this catch all sentence as well 20:23:02 paulc: this list 20:23:07 ... has been accessible for quite some time 20:23:16 ... is there any reason we wouldn't include the entire list? 20:23:22 tantek: more of a meta comment on the list 20:23:26 ... there's an antipattern 20:23:31 ... new person comes to web platform 20:23:37 ... with new feature, requests new element 20:23:42 ... i'd request the opposite 20:23:48 ... we should be very conservative 20:24:01 paulc: why is that an antipattern 20:24:09 tantek: it's what every new person does 20:24:15 ... and it's most often the wrong answer 20:24:20 ... we have CSS, we have rel= attributes 20:24:29 ... there are various other ways to do it 20:24:41 ... that Browser devs know to do instead 20:24:47 mjs: do we have lists that proposed 20:24:52 ... new types/rels? 20:25:04 ... are there new attributes? 20:25:13 MikeSmith: this list doesn't cover new attribute values/apis 20:25:24 mjs: we shouldn't presume they'll be added in the form proposed 20:25:34 ... i agree with not wanting to favor new elements 20:25:41 ... "here are some examples of elements and features" 20:25:46 tantek: i'm for examples 20:25:49 ... but not as elements 20:26:00 rubys: MikeSmith, "not for new attributes?" 20:26:06 MikeSmith: not new attribute _values_ 20:26:14 plh: I don't think we should put that text 20:26:20 ... it would be too descriptive 20:26:27 ... i'd be fine with a generic statement from mjs 20:26:35 q? 20:26:38 mjs: how about a generic statement and a link to a list of examples 20:27:30 mjs: tantek: should features include "no elements", or does he object to an "exclusive list of elements" 20:27:35 tantek: I'm ok with a list of functionality 20:27:44 ... "Web Intents is functionality" 20:27:50 ... but is picking a specific solution 20:27:56 mjs: you want a list of Functional Areas 20:28:00 ... but not to describe Syntax 20:28:02 tantek: right 20:28:08 ... Syntax is inappropriate for a charter 20:28:15 paulc: i understand the point you're making 20:28:19 q? 20:28:24 ... the fact that the bad practice that you want to eliminate/avoid 20:28:34 ... is that people view the HTML WG as owning the syntax/language 20:28:36 q+ to speak 20:28:38 ... the charter has to say that 20:28:52 ... if someone does want to follow the antipattern of adding the new element 20:28:57 ... but they should come to the HTML WG 20:29:08 tantek: that if you want a new element, you can come to the HTML WG 20:29:13 s/WG/WG?/ 20:29:21 ... No. I'd rather it not say, and they be confused 20:29:29 ... and have them ask, and be told, "no, do something else" 20:29:37 mjs: if people are confused, they won't know to whom to ask 20:29:43 ... and they'll get the wrong answer 20:29:49 ... and they'll decide it's ok to do 20:29:55 paulc: mjs stole my next question 20:30:10 ... do you want the charter should say "no one else in w3c should be creating new elements in the html language" 20:30:12 tantek: no 20:30:22 q? 20:30:23 cyns: Aria is a good example 20:30:27 tantek: +1 to cyns 20:30:35 ... even the style attribute 20:30:36 ack MikeSmith 20:30:36 MikeSmith, you wanted to speak 20:30:50 MikeSmith: ARIA is a good example of an extension developed outside HTML WG 20:30:52 paulc has joined #html-wg 20:30:53 ... but which came back 20:30:58 ... the idea of extensions being developed 20:31:01 cyns has joined #html-wg 20:31:03 ... but never being folded back 20:31:13 ... i think having new elements being created and not folded back 20:31:14 q+ 20:31:17 ... i don't think that's a good idea 20:31:25 ... let me talk about a specific example 20:31:29 ... look at stuff 20:31:33 ... there still isn't consensus 20:31:40 ... on new features for speech/tts 20:31:46 ... that there needs to be markup at all 20:31:52 ... i'd argue if there doesn't need to be markup, 20:31:58 ... then there's no need to coordinate 20:32:16 q+ 20:32:22 ... "for these features, if new elements/attributes seem to be necessary/desirable 20:32:29 ... ... then that work is in scope for the HTML WG" 20:32:35 ... i'd further assert, that the group should consider 20:32:44 ... whether it should restrict itself more to Markup features 20:32:48 ... an example of this is WebGL 20:32:55 ... work was done before it came to HTML WG 20:33:02 ... work continues to be done in HTML WG 20:33:08 ... but it could be done somewhere else 20:33:12 ... it was done somewhere else 20:33:25 ... hypothetically, it could be bound to another element 20:33:34 ... there are other APIs under discussion, today and in the future 20:33:45 ... where the WG does not necessarily have to do the work on the APIs 20:34:02 ... the work could be done ... elsewhere ... in a more efficient way 20:34:09 ... WebGL is an existence proof 20:34:17 ... there was no coordination with khronos about WebGL 20:34:23 ... and it seems to have worked out fairly well 20:34:34 Josh_Soref: WebApps should have been more in that coordination 20:34:45 MikeSmith: The spec defines HTML as having an implied Namespace 20:34:54 ... new elements and attributes 20:35:03 ... APIs, if they aren't tied to elements/attributes 20:35:10 ... we have interfaces in DOM 20:35:12 ... for HTML elements 20:35:20 ... and they have to be somewhere 20:35:24 q? 20:35:29 ack mjs 20:35:31 ... but we have things that aren't as tightly bound 20:35:42 mjs: it seems like there are two interesting dimensions to the charter 20:35:49 ... we should mention both 20:35:54 RRSAgent, make minutes 20:35:54 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/04-html-wg-minutes.html MikeSmith 20:36:02 ... one is subject matter areas that the group can work on 20:36:13 q? 20:36:15 ... charters are not totally care on whether they're minimum or maximum scope 20:36:24 ... if not working on them, they're considered to have failed 20:36:31 ... there's also a technological area of focus 20:36:35 ... CSS WG 20:36:48 ... most acknowledge that if you want to introduce a new CSS attribute 20:36:58 ... you should do it in CSS WG, or in conjunction with CSS WG 20:37:09 ... I don't know if the charter says so 20:37:12 ... but for HTML 20:37:23 ... it should probably say that you should probably talk to the HTML WG 20:37:27 q+ 20:37:34 ... if you want an Element, Attribute, Value, or Parser Change 20:37:45 ... I think the charter should cover both the low level functional domain 20:37:52 ... as well as subject matter areas open to work 20:38:01 ... the second for IPR review 20:38:11 ... and member companies may not sign off if you don't make reasonably clear 20:38:25 ... I agree with tantek 's concern about not predefining the solution for an area 20:38:26 ack rubys 20:38:35 rubys: I agree we can make a stronger statement for parser changes 20:38:45 ... new elements/attributes, different people will disagree 20:38:50 ... anne made a point about Web Components 20:38:56 ... parser changes should get HTML WG involved 20:39:04 plh: i don't say parser is in scope of HTML WG 20:39:16 ... but i'm uncomfortable about saying "no one else can work on parser" 20:39:26 ... we assert rights by coordination 20:39:40 rubys: can't you say as a positive statement "This is the group that defines the parser" 20:39:53 paulc: and you can put in the Liason section, "This is the group of possible offenders" 20:39:59 ... WebApps for Web Components 20:40:05 ... PF for ARIA 20:40:15 ... etc. 20:40:36 ... I agree the upper part of charter should say "we own this backyard, and no one else comes here" 20:40:55 plh: Canvas 2D additions 20:41:12 ... i'm assuming no one will argue against doing those additions in the WG 20:41:17 [ No objections ] 20:41:29 plh: MikeSmith, the bugzilla component has other items 20:41:48 MikeSmith: the list was proposals that were Markup features 20:42:15 eh? 20:42:39 paulc: should the charter say 20:42:58 ... "items deferred from HTML5 including the following" 20:43:05 ... you have more experience than anyone in the room 20:43:12 ... i've only listed 9 or 10 20:43:19 plh: in general, we try not to list 20:43:38 paulc: it's not uncommon to have 20:43:45 ... deliverables that are requirements for the next version 20:44:18 plh: i'm under the impression the group would like more flexibility 20:44:26 paulc: the extremes are "leave the trap door open 20:44:30 ... causing IPR pain" 20:44:42 ... or you close the trap door, and cause the 20:45:07 ... -- Make the charter vague enough that you fail AC review 20:45:21 ... -- Make an interim charter causing the WG to deliver a set of features 20:45:32 ... put that out to get feedback and do an explicit revised charter 20:45:52 plh: tantek would like to work on a element 20:45:58 [ Laughter ] 20:46:58 chaals: where's the Line element? 20:47:10 plh: Fullscreen is being taken care of 20:47:19 paulc: does video enhancements 20:47:36 ddorwin: next frame is squishy 20:48:01 q? 20:48:04 q+ 20:48:11 paulc: following mjs's request for a high level 20:48:22 ... does this mean "additional forms functionality"? 20:48:34 ... or "additional functionality based on existing language constructs"? 20:48:51 ... tantek, don't throw your chair at me 20:49:13 ... something that says "new elements and attributes", but "extensions to the existing language" 20:49:31 plh: looking at the existing charter 20:49:48 Josh_Soref: is there anything wrong with the current scope 20:49:58 s/scope/scope?/ 20:50:14 "classic HTML" really? 20:50:19 ... there's a thing about workshops 20:50:19 that text is hilarious 20:50:26 plh: in general, we don't do that normally for charters 20:50:31 adrianba: I wanted to talk about 2.1 20:50:36 ... this has things that are in scope 20:50:43 ... it seems like a reasonable compromise 20:51:07 ... maybe we can look at the other proposals 20:51:25 plh: do you think the media items are within scope for the existing charter? 20:51:31 adrianba: I've said before that i believe they are 20:51:37 cyns: second bullet from the bottom seems to cover it 20:51:48 plh: alright, if it's already in scope, we can already work on it as much as we want 20:51:55 paulc: is there anything we want to throw away 20:52:02 cyns: probably "evolved from html4" 20:52:10 rubys: still a true statement 20:52:22 Josh_Soref: do you want to move that thing about meetings? 20:52:29 plh: we can move that to another section 20:52:38 q- 20:52:39 paulc: there are 7 bullets there 20:52:56 > A language evolved from HTML4 for describing the semantics of documents and applications on the World Wide Web. This will be a complete specification, not a delta specification. 20:53:06 plh: HTML4 => HTML5 20:53:15 ... maybe remove the second sentence 20:53:19 ... i'd suggest to remove it 20:53:28 mjs: +1 20:53:29 adrianba: +1 20:53:31 chaals: +1 20:53:34 [ General agreement ] 20:53:41 > An extensible, serialized form of such a language, using XML. 20:53:51 plh: during Web Apps 20:54:02 ... the Web Components will only be applicable to one syntax, HTML, not XHTML 20:54:12 ... to be allowed to do this thing... 20:54:24 paulc: is this particular bullet met and satisfied by the polyglot spec? 20:54:34 plh: you need the xhtml syntax to do polyglot 20:54:58 paulc: where is xhtml in our deliverables? 20:55:01 plh: it's in section 9 20:55:17 paulc: polyglot came in 20:55:25 ... i'm wondering what words were in the original charter 20:55:31 ... other than the director 20:55:44 adrianba: > This group will maintain and produce incremental revisions to the HTML specification, which includes the series of specifications previously published as XHTML version 1. Both XML and 'classic HTML' syntaxes will be produced. 20:55:52 chaals: what does this commit us to do 20:55:59 ... and what does it except? 20:56:03 plh: as is the case anyway 20:56:18 chaals: here, it's reasonable to assume you can do html5 in xml 20:56:23 ... we should make it clearer that you can't 20:56:35 plh: that there are differences between the two syntaxes? 20:56:37 chaals: yes 20:56:46 ... there are semantic and capability differences 20:56:55 > A serialized form of such a language using a defined, non-XML syntax compatible with the 'classic HTML' parsers of existing Web browsers. 20:57:00 anne: why "classic" 20:57:05 adrianba: that's why it's classic 20:57:10 cyns: "classic is good" 20:57:20 anne: "classic" seems alien 20:57:32 chaals: "it sounds better than the moronist/crappy html" 20:57:39 anne: or the TAG call it "tag soup" 20:58:00 plh: i'm fine with s/'classic HTML'/HTML/ 20:58:12 paulc: do you get rid of 'existing' if you get rid of 'classic'? 20:58:15 cyns: yes 20:58:29 paulc: it seems to imply if you had a new browser that came along 20:58:42 anne: HTML language with HTML an XHTML syntaxes 20:59:25 chaals: it's in this charter, because it was a big shift from what we had 20:59:28 ... but now we have it 20:59:40 > Document Object Model (DOM) interfaces providing APIs for such a language. 20:59:56 Josh_Soref: wasn't there a DOM WG? 20:59:59 cyns: there was 21:00:05 chaals: Web Apps took over DOM Core 21:00:06 "An abstract language for describing documents and applications, with HTML an XHTML syntaxes, and some APIs for interacting with in-memory representations of resources that use this language." 21:00:13 ... the rest of DOM are belong to us 21:00:18 cyns: there's a piece missing 21:00:30 ... about how the UA maps DOM to existing OSs 21:00:49 MikeSmith: does that need to be in the HTML WG? 21:00:56 cyns: I'm not sure who else would do it 21:00:59 ... we have overlap 21:01:06 paulc: what's the deliverable 21:01:25 cyns: a document mapping how HTML constructs map to Accessibility constructs in a variety of platforms 21:01:50 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-api-map/raw-file/default/Overview.html 21:02:03 paulc: you're saying the high level deliverables don't cover that deliverable 21:02:18 s|http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-api-map/raw-file/default/Overview.html|-> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-api-map/raw-file/default/Overview.html HTML to Platform Accessibility APIs Implementation Guide| 21:03:01 paulc: a specification mapping HTML elements and attributes to accessibility API Roles 21:03:13 ... States and Properties on a variety of platforms 21:03:22 ... that would let this document map to that requirement 21:03:29 janina: this is important 21:03:36 ... because there will be an HTML.next and an ARIA.next 21:03:41 cyns: and the platforms are evolving 21:03:47 > Forms and common UI widgets such as progress bars, datagrids, menus, and other controls. 21:03:51 cyns: we need more of those 21:03:58 ... i don't think those are the right ones 21:04:02 rubys: the examples should be updated 21:04:32 kennyluck has joined #html-wg 21:04:37 cyns: chaals is bored, he wants a soap opera to watch 21:04:40 > APIs for the manipulation of linked media. 21:04:43 > Editing APIs and user-driven WYSIWYG editing features. 21:04:48 cyns: those still need work 21:05:00 paulc: is there anything we want to add? 21:05:14 ... in general, are the things we've talked about adequately covered by the evolving bullets we have here? 21:05:19 cyns: which bullets covers canvas? 21:05:22 plh: interesting point 21:05:27 [ Uh ] 21:05:43 mjs: Man, I never thought we'd get to have this conversation 21:06:24 plh: maybe i should put some wording for the element 21:06:35 mjs: at some point there was an addition for canvas 21:06:45 paulc: was that in a note to AC or in the charter? 21:07:15 > Data and canvas are reasonable areas of work for the group. On the one hand, they elaborate areas touched on in HTML4. On the other hand, these elaborations are much deeper than the features of HTML4, but also they form separate subsystems, and these subsystems have strong overlaps with other design areas. 21:07:26 plh: so, we should make sure microdata is in scope as well? 21:07:45 paulc: update the bullets 21:07:52 ... and then reverse engineer the bullets from the deliverables 21:07:55 ... Accessibility Document 21:07:58 ... Canvas 21:08:28 ... Polyglot (covered, but obscurely) 21:08:35 MikeSmith: why does Canvas 2d need to be in HTML WG 21:08:38 ... where WebGL isn't? 21:08:45 ... is it historical? 21:09:00 ... assuming it's the right place is maybe not the right assumption 21:09:07 plh: do you want to create another? 21:09:21 ... anyone want to do it outside the WG? 21:09:27 MikeSmith: alright, let's resolve then 21:09:53 rubys: if someone actually proposed that 21:09:57 ... i think we should consider it 21:10:21 ddorwin has joined #html-wg 21:10:35 paulc: are we done? 21:10:49 plh: there was DOM Parsing and Serialization 21:10:55 ISSUE-184? 21:10:55 ISSUE-184 -- Add a data element -- open 21:10:55 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/184 21:11:21 ISSUE-198? 21:11:21 ISSUE-198 -- Ensure innerHTML and related APIs are subject to the W3C patent policy -- open 21:11:21 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/198 21:11:38 rubys: ISSUE-198 failed for lack of an editor 21:11:44 ... microsoft identified an editor 21:11:47 ... it's now in scope of chairs 21:11:57 ... proposal to change 21:12:02 ... assumption in W3C 21:12:09 ... this came up during web apps charter 21:12:17 plh: it's in Web Apps charter atm 21:12:23 chaals: that charter has been finished and approved 21:12:31 ... does HTML want to fight us for it? 21:12:53 paulc: i sent an email to the cochairs 21:13:00 ... didn't this material come out of html spec? 21:13:05 anne: yes 21:13:23 paulc: straw man, doesn't it make sense to do it here, since it's from here? 21:13:32 hober: a number of things have been spread out 21:13:37 anne: html spec is too big 21:13:43 ... and once spun out, it's also wrong 21:13:56 mjs: there was an individual from ms who volunteered to do the work 21:14:13 ... would he object to do it if it were a webapps deliverable instead of in html? 21:14:20 paulc: we'll pass on your question 21:14:27 rubys: shouldn't we get the editor's input? 21:14:31 paulc: yes 21:14:37 ... cochairs should discuss this 21:14:44 ... given we have a volunteer to do the work 21:14:54 ... and we'll get back to both WGs with a proposed solution 21:14:59 plh: it's in scope of Web Apps 21:15:11 paulc: that's a likely solution 21:15:45 (my "too big" was a quote) 21:15:58 paulc: plh, on Apr 24 21:16:08 ... you sent out a proposal to have a charter 21:16:22 ... are you going to take our input today and go directly to AC? 21:16:29 plh: no, i'd like to write a charter 21:16:32 ... to ask MikeSmith to do it 21:16:37 ... and circulate it to the WG 21:16:42 paulc: can we have a time table for tha? 21:16:44 s/tha/that/ 21:16:47 plh: MikeSmith ? 21:16:51 MikeSmith: next month? 21:16:56 chaals: the first or second? 21:17:06 MikeSmith: not likely i can do it by the end of this month 21:17:34 ACTION MikeSmith to draft revised HTML WG charter for May 31 21:17:34 Created ACTION-212 - Draft revised HTML WG charter for May 31 [on Michael[tm] Smith - due 2012-05-11]. 21:17:49 action-212 due May 312 21:17:49 ACTION-212 Draft revised HTML WG charter for May 31 due date now May 312 21:17:54 action-212 due May 31 21:17:54 ACTION-212 Draft revised HTML WG charter for May 31 due date now May 31 21:18:13 paulc: plh, are we done? 21:18:18 plh: i believe so 21:18:21 [ Time check ] 21:19:35 bryan has joined #html-wg 21:20:55 [ Short Break ] 21:27:23 rubys has joined #html-wg 21:28:12 s/Short/Cookie/ 21:33:07 nonge has joined #html-wg 21:34:45 paulc: sometimes the HTML WG doesn't have good notes from meetings 21:34:56 ... i suspect this will be an exception 21:35:03 ... on behalf of the HTML WG 21:35:15 [ paulc presents a bottle of Red Wine to Josh_Soref, scribe ] 21:35:17 [ Applause ] 21:35:21 janina has joined #html-wg 21:35:35 Topic: ISSUE-204 21:35:37 ISSUE-204? 21:35:37 ISSUE-204 -- Exempt ARIA attributes from the rule that prohibits reference to hidden elements -- open 21:35:37 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/204 21:35:57 s/Topic: ISSUE-204/Topic: ISSUE-204 ARIA-Hidden/ 21:36:04 hober: there have been several proposals 21:36:18 ... the major point of disagreement 21:36:22 ... is whether or not 21:36:29 ... the spec should mandate that the content of the individual 21:36:37 ... element should be flattened in the Accessibility tree 21:36:42 cyns: as far as i can tell 21:36:46 ... the diff is hard to read 21:36:54 ... you deleted almost the same things i deleted 21:37:00 cyns: the options 21:37:05 ... and we can go into which are feasible 21:37:07 ... later 21:37:17 ... aria-described-by/aria-labeled-by 21:37:25 ... you could flatten it and do the name calculation 21:37:28 ... which puts a strain 21:37:33 ... or you could create a subtree 21:37:37 ... out of what it's pointing to 21:37:47 mjs: i think the other proposal doesn't specify how to do it 21:37:56 ... which leaves it to the Aria implementer's guide 21:38:03 hober: which avoids baking in flattening 21:38:11 cyns: the reason flattening is called out explicitly 21:38:16 ... what happens now for similar calculations 21:38:21 ... is it goes into a string field 21:38:24 ... with a certain length 21:38:29 ... markup stripped out 21:38:39 ... if what you point to is a complex marked up tree 21:38:42 ... that's problematic 21:38:49 ... but sometimes what's in there is text 21:38:52 ... and it works well enough 21:38:59 ... what i tried to do in my proposal 21:39:04 ... is make clear that's how the api works 21:39:09 ... and how it fits into the api strucutre 21:39:14 s/strucutre/structure 21:39:30 ... and make it clear to authors what you want in there 21:39:37 mjs: are you saying Aria spec requires it 21:39:41 ... or all implementations do it 21:39:48 ... or it's fundamentally impossible to do 21:39:52 cyns: 1 and 2 yes 21:39:55 ... not sure about 3 21:39:59 mjs: 3 i know it's false 21:40:02 hober: good to know 21:40:23 mjs: anything in dom, it's possible to expose with full semantics 21:40:25 Q+ 21:40:29 ... it's possible to put into the accessibility tree 21:40:36 cyns: it seems like a very 21:40:42 ... i agree it's technically possible 21:40:46 ... it seems a strange implementation 21:40:59 hober: my understanding is that the accessibility tree is based on the content of the render tree 21:41:08 ... but we don't create things for elements that aren't displayed 21:41:14 cyns: i don't think we do that for native applications 21:41:21 ... i don't think we do that for nodes not part of the ui 21:41:26 ... it isn't how UIA works 21:41:33 ... it seems strange from how ATs 21:41:39 ... and how users are used to things 21:41:50 ... what we do now with similar constructs is "you may grab text" 21:41:54 ... or you may do nothing 21:42:03 hober: for us, we may grab text 21:42:08 cyns: what does VoiceOver do with that 21:42:15 ... is it similiar with that 21:42:21 mjs: we don't have anything like that 21:42:26 ... but it could work like: 21:42:31 ... when you're on an element 21:42:38 ... it could work the same way as if it were directly 21:42:49 ... whether content was visible to sighted users or not 21:42:59 ... often we're faced with content that's offscreen 21:43:18 cyns: you have offscreen content? 21:43:26 Josh_Soref: "skip to content" is offscreen 21:43:38 JF: the more complex the tabable offscreen element is 21:43:45 ... if you tab through offscreen elements 21:43:49 ... it's a horrible UE 21:43:52 s/UE/UX/ 21:43:58 mjs: when I mean keyboard navigation 21:44:03 ... i do not mean tab navigation 21:44:12 ... VoiceOver has special navigation 21:44:17 myakura has joined #html-wg 21:44:18 ... for character by character 21:44:20 ... word by word 21:44:23 ... etc 21:44:30 ... when VoiceOver does this 21:44:44 ... it has a box so sighted users can see what the user is hearing 21:44:53 ... it's possible to structure stuff so it's visible on screen 21:45:04 ... i agree focusable controls may be a separate issue 21:45:11 ... tables, rope commands 21:45:15 ... may be doable 21:45:27 ... i'm not claiming we have it implemented now 21:45:31 ... but based on my understanding of what we have 21:45:35 ... i'd be sad if we couldn't do this 21:45:47 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Correct_Hidden_Attribute_Section_v2 21:46:12 s|http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Correct_Hidden_Attribute_Section_v2|-> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Correct_Hidden_Attribute_Section_v2 Correct Hidden Attribute Section v2| 21:46:39 > User agents should not create accessible objects in the platform accessibility API tree for elements that have the hidden attribute specified. 21:46:46 mjs: what's the justification around SHOULD NOT 21:46:53 cyns: I don't know how to create a reasonable UI 21:46:59 mjs: for tables 21:47:02 ... what's the reason not to? 21:47:09 cyns: it doesn't fit with how things work now 21:47:14 ... it's a documenting how things work now 21:47:19 mjs: documenting is ok 21:47:21 ... as a warning 21:47:26 ... but a 'should' 21:47:32 cyns: it was focusable elements 21:47:46 paulc: "SHOULD NOT" means "you shouldn't do it unless you have a good reason" 21:47:52 rubys: can you flip it to 21:47:57 ... "Authors should not presume" 21:48:04 cyns: maybe we could make it tighter 21:48:11 ... I'm not sure how to build the tree in UIA 21:48:21 mjs: i'm not sure 21:48:30 ... i could see how it's fair to create a warning to authors 21:48:37 ... that requires to be understandable 21:48:44 ... users have to understand the scemantics 21:49:01 cyns: i think we may want to be more careful with focusable elements 21:49:06 hober: if a couple years from now 21:49:11 ... they did think of a good way to do it 21:49:14 cyns: i could see that 21:49:21 ... but i'm worried that people would think that's a good idea 21:49:31 ... there's a worry that people spend all their time 21:49:39 ... thinking about visual readers 21:49:48 ... putting things offscreen as a good thing for accessibility 21:49:52 ... is an antipattern 21:49:59 mjs: how do you handle offscreen? 21:50:08 cyns: keyboard focus goes offscreen 21:50:17 ... if i find that on a microsoft site, i try to shop it from shipping 21:50:28 mjs: it seems that if a user tabs to something offscreen 21:50:33 ... you should temporarily show it 21:50:40 ... if a UA can give a better experience 21:50:45 ... i think they should be encouraged to try 21:50:54 ... i can see the argument for not encouraging authors to try 21:50:59 ... while they do not exist 21:51:04 cyns: would you be comfortable with a 21:51:12 ... "browsers may flatten, they may create a subtree" 21:51:19 mjs: by may, that'd be fine 21:51:23 cyns: I meant MAY 21:51:34 mjs: it seems that should be in the aria-implementers-guide 21:51:44 ... it seems weird to be in the html spec 21:51:52 cyns: so if we shortened this significantly 21:51:57 ... so hidden was exempted from 21:52:08 ... aria-described|labeled-by 21:52:13 ... from no-render 21:52:28 ... and then put the rest of it in aria-implementation-guide 21:52:39 hober: if we did that, it would be substantially closer to the other proposal 21:52:45 cyns: what do you guys think about that? 21:52:52 janina: i'm having trouble understanding hober 21:53:01 chaals: hober said that gets us closer to agreement 21:53:25 hober: i think sicking wants us to require the full semantics to the AT 21:53:30 s/AT/AT Tree/ 21:53:35 paulc: is that the second difference? 21:53:41 hober: it's the same different 21:53:46 s/different/difference/ 21:53:53 mjs: is that opinion in the change proposal? 21:54:08 hober: the change proposals on the table do not capture sicking's desire 21:54:15 mjs: probably because that's an ARIA requirement 21:54:27 cyns: and no one i've spoken to would support 21:54:39 JF: something we've said can't and won't work 21:54:44 ... that isn't really feasible 21:54:46 Jonas CP: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/AllowAriaReferHidden 21:54:51 cyns: looking at the two change proposals 21:55:04 ... we could get consensus by moving controversy to a new document 21:55:09 JF: that just moves the rub somewhere else 21:55:23 ... we need to clearly communicate to content authors the limitation of doing this 21:55:36 ... we have no evidence of seeing this behavior from other browsers/OSs 21:55:44 ... not saying this to be dismissive 21:55:49 ... when content authors are creating content 21:55:57 ... it's for all browsers on all platforms 21:56:04 ... but without commitment from everyone 21:56:12 cyns: or have UIs for how it would work 21:56:14 mjs: a proposal 21:56:32 ... remove the restriction from html5 on linking to hidden content 21:56:43 ... and include a warning that many implementations may give a limited version 21:56:47 ... including flattening text 21:57:07 ... and the actual hard requirements on what UAs are allowed to do 21:57:17 ... would be deferred to the ARIA specification/implementers guide 21:57:26 JF: the change proposal that cyns presented 21:57:37 ... was a collaboration of the ARIA members 21:57:48 ... it'd be unfair to give a definitive answer 21:58:05 mjs: acknowledging that different people may have different opinions 21:58:14 cyns: i'm having a hard time channeling people 21:58:19 ... with whom i don't agree 21:58:27 cyns: personally... moving the discussion of flattening 21:58:36 ... into ARIA/accessibility implementation guide 21:58:38 ... is probably fine 21:58:51 ... but when i suggest anything close to that, flame wars errupt 21:58:56 janina: i think it would further delay us 21:59:00 ... we're already 13 months delayed 21:59:15 JF: we're often told, we want to get this guidance into the HTML5 spec 21:59:20 ... authors want one point of reference 21:59:33 ... so in html5 you'd say "it's ok, but go to aria to make sure it's ok" 21:59:43 ... it's kind of like punting it to a document that will have less readership 21:59:53 mjs: i'm suggesting the warning to authors would be in the html 5 spec 21:59:55 q+ chaals 22:00:12 mjs: and then a bit to the implementers in the other document 22:00:19 JF: and that's down to the strength of the warning 22:00:30 ... if it's sufficiently foreboding enough 22:00:38 ... paulc's SHOULD 22:00:42 ... "you really shouldn't" 22:00:49 ... there has to be a strong justification 22:00:59 ... if we could invoke this is a warning 22:01:07 ... or make it a SHOULD NOT 22:01:18 ... then i think some of the more problematic responses within the larger group could be addressed 22:01:23 q- plh 22:01:26 q- JF 22:01:27 ack chaals 22:01:31 chaals: how you put it is important 22:01:39 ... and how you put it depends on where the platform goes 22:01:50 Current warning to authors => "This technique should not be used for longer content that has structured text (e.g., headings, anchors, list markup, table markup, etc.), as accessible name and description calculation [WAI-ARIA] will flatten the referenced elements to plain text, losing interactivity and semantic structure." 22:01:51 ... if MS holds a significant share of the platform for users 22:02:03 ... then trying to drive them around by misleading authors 22:02:07 ... is wrong 22:02:21 ... by the same token, i'd expect and hope that ms won't sit with no flattening for 140 years 22:02:30 ... a warning that matches a reasonable sense of expectations 22:02:36 ... points to the aria documentation 22:02:40 ... where it gets defined 22:02:44 Proposed warning to authors => "This technique should not be used for longer content that has structured text (e.g., headings, anchors, list markup, table markup, etc.), because the content may be presented only as flattened plaintext. Authors should not assume that full semantics will be preserved." 22:02:49 ... and not putting an explicit requirement that you can't do anything better 22:02:55 q+ 22:02:58 ... does put a modicum of pressure on people to upgrade 22:03:07 cyns: what i'm hearing is 22:03:11 ... removing a UA SHOULD NOT 22:03:23 ... and adding an Authors SHOULD NOT 22:03:30 mjs: there is an Authors SHOULD NOT 22:03:44 ... in cyns's proposal 22:04:09 mjs: "This technique should not be used for longer content that has structured text (e.g., headings, anchors, list markup, table markup, etc.), as accessible name and description calculation [WAI-ARIA] will flatten the referenced elements to plain text, losing interactivity and semantic structure." 22:04:14 mjs: I suggested an alternative 22:04:21 mjs: "This technique should not be used for longer content that has structured text (e.g., headings, anchors, list markup, table markup, etc.), because the content may be presented only as flattened plaintext. Authors should not assume that full semantics will be preserved." 22:04:36 cyns: that seems good 22:04:46 ... it seems like we should add something about focusable stuff 22:04:47 [+1 to mjs' proposed text as written by mjs above.] 22:04:56 janina: that suggests it may be ok in many circumstances 22:05:02 ... i don't think you have that much marketshare yet 22:05:07 ... i'm disagreeing 22:05:12 ... there will be more breakage 22:05:20 ... the warning is too weak 22:05:27 ... make it stronger, that's fine 22:05:50 cyns: did you have a suggestion? 22:05:54 paulc: this is the chair 22:06:06 ... in sicking's proposal 22:06:11 ... he gives as credible evidence 22:06:15 ... the position of Apple + Mozilla 22:06:18 ... of what Firefox can do 22:06:26 ... does the counter proposal discredit that as not sufficient 22:06:29 cyns: I quoted that as well 22:06:31 ... the quotes 22:06:39 ... say "apple doesn't have a strong feeling either way" 22:06:46 ... i didn't hear "we plan to do this in 18 months" 22:06:54 JF: it's easy to say "browser can solve world peace" 22:07:07 mjs: we don't have a strong view on author's conformance 22:07:19 ... everyone seems to agree that it's ok to point to hidden content 22:07:31 ... the issue is what authors should be aware of when they use the technique 22:07:46 ... the original point to which we didn't have strong feelings is no longer a controversy 22:08:03 [I still think pointing to hidden text is an anti-pattern, but I'm not dying on that hill] 22:08:24 cyns: an Authors SHOULD NOT as a validation warning with appropriate text 22:08:28 ... because it doesn't work now 22:08:36 ... and no one thinks it will work anytime soon 22:08:48 paulc: part of the concern is implementation plans 22:08:54 ... if we came down to a survey 22:09:07 ... whether cochairs would be comfortable making a decision around that grounds alone 22:09:19 q+ 22:09:20 ... we'd be more comfortable making a decision on caution signs 22:09:27 janina: something quantitative would help 22:09:46 q- 22:09:48 chaals: you can't quantify this against when we might have something in the future 22:09:51 q? 22:10:04 ack rubys 22:10:12 rubys: we're talking about modifying one or both proposals 22:10:25 ... chairs will not craft a mix+match proposal when we go to survey 22:10:33 ... cyns, you might expect a very strong objection 22:10:37 ... to your proposal 22:10:43 cyns: i'm not tied to it 22:11:06 rubys: we might pick the other one 22:11:14 cyns: i'm comfortable with it 22:11:22 ... but others may take convincing 22:11:33 paulc: maybe for HTML5 you can get an Authors MUST NOT 22:11:43 cyns: it's the UA requirements that people object to 22:11:54 ... do you think sicking would be ok with that 22:12:02 plh has joined #html-wg 22:12:06 hober: i'd assume he's less concerned w/ Authoring requirements 22:12:18 JF: i hear this as reducing the implementation sticking point 22:12:32 cyns: this is machine testable, and a violation 22:12:39 JF: it can be author guidance in the spec 22:12:48 ... and WAICAG 22:13:00 cyns: so, remove the UA requirement 22:13:05 ... and add an Author MUST NOT 22:13:27 cyns: not machine testable doesn't seem like a good must 22:13:36 hober: we have lots of none machine testable 22:13:45 mjs: MUST NOT USE v. MUST NOT RELY ON 22:13:53 ... you aren't letting Authors 22:13:59 cyns: that sounds like a SHOULD NOT 22:14:08 janina: I'd be ok with that 22:14:15 JF: We'll get there 22:14:19 ... it won't be a walk in the park 22:14:30 cyns: we can put the stronger text in ARIA 22:14:34 JF: and WAICAG 22:14:47 ... authors are going to see this as some magic token thing that will make things disappear 22:14:52 ... today there are significant problems 22:15:01 ... maybe down the road someday, things may get better 22:15:10 ... we don't want to restrict browsers from getting better 22:15:17 .... the more you can do to make the UX better 22:15:25 s/..../.../ 22:15:33 ... there's been discussion about making things better 22:15:41 mjs has joined #html-wg 22:15:42 janina: otoh, today, there's an unmet need 22:15:46 paulc: actions today? 22:15:55 cyns: for me to redraft the details section of the proposal 22:15:58 JF: i'll help 22:16:06 hober: and i'll try to run it by sicking 22:16:11 ... and maybe we'll drop the other proposal 22:16:17 paulc: we split 204 off 30 22:16:20 ISSUE-30? 22:16:20 ISSUE-30 -- Should HTML 5 include a longdesc attribute for images -- open 22:16:20 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/30 22:16:41 paulc: if we get consensus on 204 22:16:46 ... it unblocks ISSUE-30 22:16:53 ... do we need to make changes to proposals on ISSUE-30 22:17:05 cyns: i'm not sure what the proposals are on ISSUE-30 22:17:12 ... but this is less rich than this 22:17:22 ... since LONGDESC links to a structured document 22:17:30 q+ 22:17:36 mjs: the authors of those proposals may want time to redraft those proposals 22:17:44 rubys: if sicking's proposal were done 22:17:50 RRSAgent, make minutes 22:17:50 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/04-html-wg-minutes.html MikeSmith 22:17:55 ... i can see proposals for don't use LONGDESC being enhanced 22:18:15 paulc: if we get consensus on cyns 's proposal 22:18:21 ... (modified) 22:18:26 ... if we don't get consensus 22:18:28 ... go to survye 22:18:32 s/survye/survey/ 22:18:38 ... and sicking's is the winner 22:18:43 ... then it's possible the 30 22:19:02 hober: i don't think cyns's modified is much different from sicking's 22:19:07 cyns: sicking's proposal 22:19:19 ... suggested a structured hidden thing 22:19:24 ... but unicorns 22:19:40 paulc: LONGDESC does point to a structured HTML file 22:19:55 ... but hidden with aria-described-by for a year would not 22:20:03 what if LONGDESC pointed to data URL text/plain? 22:20:06 mjs has joined #html-wg 22:20:08 JF: the issue with 30 is: no exit strategy 22:20:39 cyns: to be fair, impl of longdesc in browsers is spotty today 22:20:48 ... a flat string today everywhere 22:20:54 ... is better than spotty longdesc today 22:21:04 ... what we're talking about here is easier to implement 22:21:15 paulc: i heard cyns and JF to do a proposal 22:21:28 hober: I'll work with sicking to review the revised proposal 22:21:41 paulc: to make a decision of "can you live with the modified proposal" 22:21:51 rubys: will sicking be at the CSS WG? 22:22:02 hober: no 22:22:09 JF: i'd like it done soon 22:23:10 ... i can do some drafting 22:23:37 ISSUE-184? 22:23:37 ISSUE-184 -- Add a data element -- open 22:23:37 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/184 22:24:22 JF: accessibility team will mean Tue+Thu of next week 22:24:29 ... cyns and i will work together 22:24:37 ... i'll take driver's position 22:24:54 ... to tech team before sicking 22:25:14 ... by the 15th of may 22:25:34 paulc: janina, can judy invite me to the meeting 22:25:52 ... hober late next week in your hands 22:27:22 ISSUE-203? 22:27:22 ISSUE-203 -- All Media Elements should have the ability to have both short and longer textual descriptions associated to the element -- open 22:27:22 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/203 22:27:34 paulc: on behalf of the WG, Josh_Soref, thanks very much 22:27:44 krisk has joined #html-wg 22:27:47 ... i understand the french wine is much better than the California wine 22:28:08 ... we have a meeting next week 22:28:15 Testing Status Update -> http://www.w3c-test.org/html/tests/reporting/HTML5_Status_5_4_2012.pdf 22:28:21 ... 8am for accessibility, and WG at 9am 22:28:28 ... mjs: who's chairing? 22:28:31 mjs: i can do another 22:28:45 krisk: i can help 22:29:00 paulc: thanks everyone 22:29:21 ... chairs will have a proposal for media soon 22:29:31 ... see many of you at TPAC 22:29:34 ... thanks very much 22:29:43 janina: thanks to MS for hosting 22:29:48 [ Applause ] 22:29:53 [ Adjourned ] 22:29:59 trackbot, end telcon 22:29:59 Zakim, list attendees 22:29:59 As of this point the attendees have been F2F, Josh_Soref, MikeSmith, +1.858.677.aaaa, paulc, JF, janina, bryan, sam, Arno_, glenn, Arnaud_Braud, Paul_Cotton, Adrian_Bateman, 22:30:02 ... Russell_Berkoff, Peter_Peterka, Odin_Horthe_Omdal, plh, Aaron_Colwell, frankolivier, anne, hober, Wonsuk, +1.650.576.aabb, BobLund 22:30:07 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 22:30:07 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/04-html-wg-minutes.html trackbot