HTML Weekly Teleconference

20 Sep 2012


MartinSoukup, Radhika_Roy, ddorwin, Cooper, Sam, hober, Eliot, Plh, paulc, Cynthia_Shelly, John_Foliot, jaymunro, Art_Barstow, Judy, mjs, adrianba


Paul: let's switch to other business

Adaptive Image Element Proposal

Paul: I took an action item to create a bugzilla component for it

<scribe> ACTION: Paul to create a bugzilla component for the Adaptive Image Element Proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/20-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-221 - Create a bugzilla component for the Adaptive Image Element Proposal [on Paul Cotton - due 2012-09-27].

Evolving AppCache discussions

Paul: ongoing thread about mailing lists
... we have people on both sides
... the technical discussion aren't proceeding in the meantime

Maciej: I would suggest a preference poll to figure this out
... this is not substantive

[no objection to the idea]

<scribe> ACTION: Maciej to create a preference poll for the appcache mailing list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/20-html-wg-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-222 - Create a preference poll for the appcache mailing list [on Maciej Stachowiak - due 2012-09-27].

Proposed rewording of ISSUE-204 text

Paul: can Ted or someone else give a status?

Ted: additional discussion in bugzilla. last spec edit was to put the new wording as of Thursday last week.
... I don't think we've gone to a conclusion on how to tweak the wording further

Paul: do we have outstanding bugs?
... are we moving towards consensus?

Ted: when I made the edit on Thursday I called for people to file bugs on that text
... didn't see any coming so far

Janina: apologizes if I didn't catch you wanted additional bugs for that
... I'm happy to do that and will do today
... I think it's one bug
... we have two use cases and we need the language to support them

Paul: it might be useful to follow up in email as well
... is the bugzilla message good enough?

Ted: getting as many people involved sounds good to me
... so bugs and email is fine

Information on TPAC F2F meeting

Paul: sent a reminder
... we received a request for a coordination meeting
... from MLW-LT
... we'll start building some sort of agenda

<paulc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0255.html

Paul: I'll remind people that there is a daily meeting fee, with exceptions for the TPAC sponsors
... fee increase after a day in October. It triples!

--> http://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2012 Schedule


put your proposals for TP breakout sessions there

ISSUE-30 change proposal status

Paul: giving the proposed plan, wasn't sure what to do.

Janina: the consensus poll has continued to draw a traffic on the list
... the ongoing discussion isn't raising new information
... it's a fruitful discussion though
... not sure if it's important conversation
... one of the key contributors is upset by the proposed plan
... I support the new approach mindful of the fact that it delays the resolution further

Paul: maybe the best thing to do is to skip over this for the moment
... and talk about the proposed plan

Judy: the consensus poll was done on schedule and the results were summarized
... it supported the earlier consensus
... there is a discussion going on with some good give and take

<janina> Text Subteam minutes at:

Judy: given the proposed plan, it makes sense to figure out how the discussion would be moving from here

<janina> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Sep/0282.html

Judy: but the action was complete and reported

Getting HTML5 to Recommendation in 2014

<rubys> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0243.html

--> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0243.html proposed plan

<rubys> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html

<rubys> http://www.w3.org/QA/2012/09/getting_html5_to_recommendatio.html

Sam: there is a plan, a blog entry...
... the plan emphasizes modularity. gives 2014 for 5.0 and 2016 for 5.1
... looking for a call for consensus when the major comments die down

<rubys> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0269.html

Sam: there is indeed at least one bug in the plan since pubdate is not in the spec
... we'll be updating the plan based on feedback
... for 185, the proposed plan says we retain pubdate but the spec doesn't have it. it's a bug in the plan.

<rubys> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0284.html

Sam: we got input from Steve that it would prefer that the Techniques for providing useful text alternatives remains in the HTML WG
... we'll respect the wish from the editor

Judy: the comment was that the location was a concern for now

Janina: the language in section 4.8 is still a concern for Steve
... 4.8 is a problem for a11y

Paul: we talked about this and didn't put anything in the plan since it talks about open issues
... but we understand it's an important concern
... maybe it would be better if we can identify how we plan to process this concern

Janina: indeed, we're still trying to figure out the best process path

Judy: [corrected minutes]
... for issue 30, the summary of the feedback on the decision got truncated in the minutes of the html a11y tf
... will need to recreate that

<rubys> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0283.html

Sam: concern regarding validation. we do believe that Mike will be responsive to adding stuff in the w3c validator

<rubys> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0282.html

Sam: if there is a problem with that, we should discuss further
... Steve created a new spec on how to resolve the hgroup issue

<Judy> s/Judy: for now/Judy: the comment was that the location was a concern for now/

Sam: he would prefer we make change the main spec to make it easier for someone to create an extension spec for hgroup

Paul: the first one requires a correction. second requires a description about section 4.8 and alt techniques. third one needs more discussion. the validator may cause a plan update.

Sam: it sounds that people are ok to leave the alt techniques in the html wg for now

Paul: we still need to deal with the underlying concern

sam: agreed

Paul: any discussion in PF?

Janina: an topic is the importance of messaging around this and the fact that extensions are first class citizen in the environment

<rubys> tf minutes: http://www.w3.org/2012/09/20-html-a11y-minutes.html

Paul: one question regarding the schedule for the CR exit criteria and the CfC for the plan itself
... we don't have a firm plan
... and people are wondering how long they have to absorbe the plan and give feedback

Maciej: imho, we could have a CfC on the CR exit criteria next week.
... for the plan itself, we need to let it go further for now

Paul: some people in the html a11y didn't pay attention to the CR exit criteria

<rubys> exit criteria: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0215.html

Judy: the update on the CR exit criteria didn't go to the tf
... concern about allowing the vertical stacks

<JF> +1 to Judy's comment

Judy: I do believe that Maciej's update did take this into account

Paul: if there is feedback friom the a11y tf, we might delay the cfc for the cr exit criteria

Maciej: indeed, if we get new feedback, we'll wait

<adrianba> +1

Maciej: I like that the plan results in shipping soon

Chair and Scribe for next meeting

Paul: Maciej is on deck to chair
... anyone interested in scribing?
... I'm at risk for next week


Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Maciej to create a preference poll for the appcache mailing list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/20-html-wg-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Paul to create a bugzilla component for the Adaptive Image Element Proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/20-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/09/20 16:48:26 $