HTML Weekly Teleconference -- 27 Sep 2012

<gitbot> [html] cabanier pushed 1 new commit to html5_canvas: https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/27499c4acc54e60b832572f659c5bb1ef7b39ab1

<gitbot> [html/html5_canvas] [e] Various small fixes - Rik Cabanier

<gitbot> [html] cabanier pushed 3 new commits to html5_canvas: https://github.com/w3c/html/compare/27499c4acc54...2cde1db13a18

<gitbot> [html/html5_canvas] Adjust Anolis and html5lib install instructions, and some other README.md cleanup. - Edward O'Connor

<gitbot> [html/html5_canvas] [README] explain how to set up auto-rebasing. - Edward O'Connor

<gitbot> [html/html5_canvas] Updating name of W3 mailing list for monitoring changes in CVS - Erika Doyle Navara

<rubys> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Date: 27 September 2012

<scribe> scribe: plh

Maciej: let's cover the new draft of the proposed plan and its related documents
... looking for comments

Getting HTML to Recommendation in 2014 - Revised

Maciej: we made a couple of changes in this new version

<mjs> http://intertwingly.net/tmp/html5-2014-plan.html

Maciej: [going over the changes]
... validator
... unstable features in html.next
... integration of specifications
... also cover in the new draft of the decision policy
... at-risk features
... alt techniques
... now remaining in the html wg
... changed the plan for hgroup
... and it's at risk
... fixed pubdate
... a11y tf clarifications
... list of specs under dev
... questions? feedback?

plh: we didn't get comments on the plan during the html a11y call

Proposed CR Exit Criteria

http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/public-permissive-exit-criteria.html

<rubys> a11y tf minutes: http://www.w3.org/2012/09/27-html-a11y-minutes.html

Maciej: still some discussion on the list

Plh: John pointed out that what constitute an implementation isn't clear

Janina: yes, if it's supported by a third party
... told me it was clear but would welcome proposal
... also what happened if a feature is exposed to the a11y api but not picked up by it?
... so far, we said it'
... s enough if exposed
... and not picked up by the a11y api yet
... the mapping isn't a normative deliverable, and peharps some of that should be normative in the 5.1 timeframe

<Zakim> rubys, you wanted to ask if we have a schedule for proposed changes to the exit criteria

Sam: do we have a schedule for proposed changes, but not a schedule

Janina: we kind of gave him the default of a week, but could be sooner

Maciej: sooner would be good to allow us to move on
... so sooner the better

Sam: we're hoping to go for a CfC early next week

Maciej: one concern was about one month period was appropriate
... [...]
... added " is suitable for a person to use as his/her primary means of accessing the Web"
... we have a not fully resolved from Microsoft about who can report results from Internet Explorer

Janina: was discussed in html a11y. if implementation by third party, the claim would be against the add-on module
... does it satisfy Microsoft concern?

Adrian: I already suggested if there is more than one vendor involved, one would be sufficient. we're concerned about past reports against IE
... and some of the features are not necessarily ready

Maciej: one concern about non official reports, and the other was about the features

Macie: the test suite is under a liberal license so can't prevent reports, but we can control the messaging
... ie not endorsing results

Adrian: there is a difference between people publishing test results on their blogs and having a page on the w3c site
... the official page for implementation report should only accept test results from the vendors

Maciej: we could make sure that everybody had a chance to comment on the results
... I don't want Apple to be the only org to submit test results about safari, and I'd rather address the messaging problem
... there is also a point where we submit official test results and give a chance to comment on test results

Adrian: I'll continue to reply on the list