trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Date: 30 August 2012
<scribe> scribe: rubys
mjs: none
mjs: none, but still one outstanding tracker request
mjs: none
issue-131?
<trackbot> ISSUE-131 -- Should we add a caret location API to canvas, or is the focus API sufficient? -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/131
mjs: call for consensus closes
today; the call is to defer; the authors of the proposals agree
with that approach; to date nobody has objected
... if you do object, please back a proposal or create a new
one
issue-201?
<trackbot> ISSUE-201 -- Provide canvas location and hit testing capability to fallback content -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/201
mjs: CfC also closes today; we
have a specific proposal that the participants agreed on; we
did have an objection but that was withdrawn; there are no
active objections
... if you do have an objection, time is short, we are not
likely to be receptive to extensions to start with drafting an
entirely new proposal
issue-206?
<trackbot> ISSUE-206 -- Should HTML5 have a meta generator exception to the alt requirement? -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/206
mjs: this is a call for consensus
on only part of the issue; specifically to remove the
exception. Once this is done, we will continue to proceed with
the remainder of the issue. To date, we have some comments but
no objection.
... questions or comments?
issue-30?
<trackbot> ISSUE-30 -- Should HTML 5 include a longdesc attribute for images -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/30
mjs: at the request of the team, the chairs granted extra time
sam: we had talks with Tim yesterday, and got direction to proceed UNLESS we hear back from Tim again before 5pm eastern
laura: I have worked on another
version, but I don't know what the outcome of the TF meeting
today is
... will the chairs allow for a call for consensus
sam: the plan is to proceed at 5pm eastern unless we have feedback from tim
mjs: (to laura) I would encourage
putting that proposal forward. We might consider a day or two
extension
... has the proposal been sent out to the task force?
laura: yes, they were supposed to have talked about it
mjs: the chairs will meet after the telecon
<paulc_> There were no objections on the TF to the current text but Judy informed the TF that there is more changes to be made.
plh: you will have feedback from the director before 5pm
judy: what was the issue?
<laura> New text: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Talk:ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc
mjs: issue-30 and the call for
updating change proposals that closes today
... laura indicated that the TF needs more time
<paulc_> TF minutes: http://www.w3.org/2012/08/30-html-a11y-minutes.html
judy: I was still on the other call; the updated language is in place for all issues but one. That one is to clarify the context of disputed 204 decision; that is pending input from the Director in response to the expedited Formal Objection.
<paulc_> There was NO objection on the TF meeting to the current revised proposal.
<paulc_> I took myself off the queue
mjs: we would be hesitant to allow unbounded extra time
judy: there may be a misunderstanded, this would not be unbounded, nor would it wait on a full resolution of 204, we expect this to be done in the short term.
paulc: if the Director decides not to act, would you still need more time?
judy: we still would need to put
a brief clarifying sentence in place
... if he decides to act, we would also need to make changes;
each of these is several business days
mjs: how much extra time?
judy: it depends on when the director would make a decision and what the decision is; 3 business days max
laura: would a call for consensus for the current text be on top of that?
judy: there wasn't a decision
made in the call
... this proposal has already been supported twice, and the
additional text doesn't change the substance, and nobody
expressed an objection
we only need 48 business hours, which can be done in parallel and therefore under the 3 business day unbrella
judy: the decision may be tuesday, and we would need to add 3 business days from there
mjs: the director has indicated that if he provides any input, it will be by 5pm eastern today
plh: the director will respond by 5pm today
judy: I don't believe that the 5pm deadline came up before
sam: the 5pm deadline was given by PLH on the mailing list
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0346.html
<paulc_> and Judy was the first name in the To: field of that email
laura: mjs can you summarize what you think the plan is?
mjs: the chairs will wait for input from the director by 5pm eastern, and will proceed based on that direction
judy: this has to do with the progress on the Formal Objection
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0402.html
laura: if you hear from the director at 5pm when will we hear from the chairs?
mjs: probably sometime tonight
paulc_: I'll be on a plane
mjs: we will respect any input we give from the Director
sam: no later than 2pm eastern on Tuesday?
judy: no major objection, just some details that need to be worked
mjs: any other input related to issue 30?
mjs: none
mjs: none
mjs: none yet, but issue 30 is coming soon unless we get input otherwise
mjs: none
issue-150?
<trackbot> ISSUE-150 -- consider reducing verbosity when talking about code points -- closed
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/150
mjs: these changes are done, ted asked for confirmation that the changes made are sufficient?
issue-201?
<trackbot> ISSUE-201 -- Provide canvas location and hit testing capability to fallback content -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/201
mjs: this was mentioned earlier,
and the objection we got was withdrawn
... any other comments?
issue-206?
<trackbot> ISSUE-206 -- Should HTML5 have a meta generator exception to the alt requirement? -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/206
mjs: there is continuing
discussion on what replacement gain consensus.
... sam asked whether or not a warning would suffice as a
teachable moment and be ok with validator developers?
... anything else to be discussed with regard to the renaming
aspect?
janina: what I haven't gotten back to is whether any particular marking needs to persist with the document
mjs: please inject that into the
email discussion
... any other comments related to 206?
... any additional other business items?
mjs: any volunteers?
... if you are a regular and haven't scribed before, it is a
good experience
... moving on... if you want to volunteer, respond to the
minutes
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/msg/mjs/ Found Scribe: rubys Inferring ScribeNick: rubys WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: Apple Eliot J_Voracek Jedi Joshue108 Judy Lachy Lachy_ Laura_Carlson MFoladare MartinSoukup Microsoft Mike MikeSmith MikeSmith_ P7 Radhika_Roy Sam Stevef TravisLeithead aa aaaa abarsto adrianba adrianba_ davidb drublic drublic_ ed erikadoyle hober html-wg icaaq icaaq1 janina jaymunro jet johnlsheridan joined karl kennyluck kennyluck_ laura logbot mjs myakura nonge_ paulc paulc_ plh shepazu tantek tantek_ tmpsantos tpod trackbot You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2012JulSep/0024.html WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 30 Aug 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/08/30-html-wg-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]