- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 08:30:35 -0600
- To: public-html-wg-announce@w3.org
Topics
1. Convene
2. Issue states
3. ISSUE-59 (normative-language-reference)
4. ISSUE-65: HTML 5 spec update after 10 June 2008
5. ISSUE-54 (doctype-legacy-compat)
6. ISSUE-13 (handling-http-401-status)
7. issue-31 missing-alt
8. ISSUE-37 (html-svg-mathml)
9. ISSUE-60 (html5-xhtml-namespace)
10. ISSUE-55 (head-profile)
11. ISSUE-56 (urls-webarch):
12. ISSUE-13 (handling-http-401-status)
Full text:
http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-html-wg-minutes.html
2009/01/22 18:14:59
and an inline copy for tracker and the email archive search engine,
etc. ...
HTML WG weekly telcon
22 Jan 2009
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2009JanMar/0010.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-html-wg-irc
Attendees
Present
Masinter, Julian, Sam, DanC, Matt_May, hsivonen, Shepazu,
Gregory_Rosmaita, Cynthia_Shelly, adrianba, ChrisWilson,
Shawn_Medero, Mike
Regrets
Chair
Sam Ruby
Scribe
DanC
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Convene
2. [6]Issue states
3. [7]ISSUE-59 (normative-language-reference)
4. [8]ISSUE-65: HTML 5 spec update after 10 June 2008
5. [9]ISSUE-54 (doctype-legacy-compat)
6. [10]ISSUE-13 (handling-http-401-status)
7. [11]issue-31 missing-alt
8. [12]ISSUE-37 (html-svg-mathml)
9. [13]ISSUE-60 (html5-xhtml-namespace)
10. [14]ISSUE-55 (head-profile)
11. [15]ISSUE-56 (urls-webarch):
12. [16]ISSUE-13 (handling-http-401-status)
* [17]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<gsnedders> takkaria: JPEG, I guess.
Convene
<scribe> scribe: DanC
<takkaria> gsnedders: yeah, but I thought JPEG was pretty much done
with these days
<pimpbot> Title: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-01-22 [w/addendum]
from Sam Ruby on 2009-01-21 (public-html-wg-announce@w3.org from
January to March 2009) (at lists.w3.org)
<hsivonen> my regrets for the second half of the call (I have to
leave in 30 minutes)
Issue states
Sam: note update to issue states in [18]http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML
[18] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML
<pimpbot> Title: HTML - ESW Wiki (at esw.w3.org)
(no comments)
(last edited 2009-01-20 23:06:24 by SamRuby)
ISSUE-59 (normative-language-reference)
<rubys> [19]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/markup-spec/
[19] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/markup-spec/
<pimpbot> Title: HTML 5: The Markup Language (at www.w3.org)
Sam: I propose we publish [20]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/markup-spec/
[20] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/markup-spec/
<pimpbot> Title: HTML 5: The Markup Language (at www.w3.org)
hsivonen: I object to publishing it as a normative spec; it's
valuable, but having 2 normative documents is a problem...
... also, markup-spec basically includes the schema from
validator.nu , and I don't think it should be normative
... if it weren't my schema, I would like that, so on behalf of
potential competitors, I don't think we should do that
<deane> I object to publishing the markup-spec, it hasn't been
reviewed by the group. There are other reasons for objecting, but I
would rather discuss in email
Sam: I hear your arguments; neither this doc nor the HTML 5 spec
enjoys consensus; do you think your argument should prevent
publication?
<Julian> depends on the definition of "publish"
hsivonen: publishing as WD suggests an eventual REC, yes?
<deane> The spec has been discussed at length by the group though
[missed some; hope it wasn't essential technical stuff]
<deane> publishing the spec is in the charter, it's not a new
concept like the "markup-spec"
<Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to ask naively why does this document
exist? what is its relationship to the HTML5 spec as submitted to
W3C
<shepazu> mailing-list++
Sam: the HTML 5 spec has a number of things that are controversial;
the TAG asked us to look at other approaches, and this is one... the
proposal to publish isn't a guarantee of its outcome
<oedipus> GJR: note or REC track?
Sam: regarding 2 normative specs, I think competition would be
healthy
... we can continue to discuss this proposal in the mailing list
<hsivonen> IIRC, it isn't a proper subset
Julian: my understanding is that the html-markup spec is derived not
only from the validator.nu schema but also text from the HTML 5
spec. it has sections pulled from the HTML 5 spec
<deane> Sam, the HTML WG, has never decided if we need a
markup-spec, so I don't think it's appropriate to publish
Masinter: are people objecting to discussion of publication?
<deane> It all arose from misinformation (like most things)
<deane> I wasn't joking
<deane> :)
DanC: I understand the proposal to be to publish, not to discuss
publishing. This WG takes several days between when questions are
put and when the outcome of the decision is announced
Sam: I'd like to have a high bar for objections...
<dsinger> when did it become something that was even a potential
deliverable (the intro says it is not an agreed deliverable of the
group)? going straight from "not a deliverable" to "publish this"
seems a leap, to me...
<deane> hear hear
DanC: well, whether a WG participant objects is up to that
participant, right? I understand hsivonen to have objected,
formally...
Doug: on behalf of Mozilla?
DanC: yes
HSivonen: as a validator.nu developer
<dsinger> really concerned about having two specs and having to deal
with contradictions, explain their relationship, and so on...what is
the proposed publication status?
(I understand Sam to have proposed status of WD)
Sam: hsivonen, pls elaborate on your objection?
hsivonen: having a normative specification built from a schema seems
circular. [scribe doesn't think he got the gist of that]
(I should have sent mail... I wonder about publishing Mike's doc as
a NOTE called "A schema-based description of HTML 5"; but I'm not
sure I should muddy the waters now...)
Mike: it's currently in sync what validator.nu, but that's not an
essential constraint
<oedipus> +1 to sam on moving on
<deane> I believe that the W3C has been sending mixed messages to
people about what the HTML5 spec is, and what's in scope, and this
IMO is how the request arose for a "markup-spec". So, IMO there is
no need for such a document, it contridicts the main spec.
<zcorpan> circular as in bugs in hsivonen's schema become bugs in
the spec if the spec is generated from the schema (which become
non-bugs since by definition it is correct behavior)?
ISSUE-65: HTML 5 spec update after 10 June 2008
<hsivonen> the schema becoming out of sync with validator.nu would
invoke my previous objection :-)
Sam: note proposal to publish
[21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2009
JanMar/0012.html
[21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2009JanMar/0012.html
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-95, ISSUE-65: Plan to publish a new WD of
HTML-5 from Chris Wilson on 2009-01-22
(public-html-wg-announce@w3.org from January to March 2009) (at
lists.w3.org)
<dsinger> ...thinks an informative documen might be useful, but a
normative one bad...
Sam: any objections?
<deane> I think Mike's work should be incorporated into the main
spec.
ISSUE-54 (doctype-legacy-compat)
<oedipus> pointer to emessage please
Sam: we seem to have consensus around a recent proposal...
hsivonen: proposing 2 valid doctypes: <!DOCTYPES html>, as current,
and ...
<zcorpan> (also constraints hsivonen some day prefers to implement
in java instead of schema become undefined in the spec if the spec
is generated from the schema)
hsivonen: <!DOCTYPES html system "about:sgml-compat">
<hsivonen> <!DOCTYPE html> and <!DOCTYPE html SYSTEM
"about:sgml-compat">
<oedipus> +1 to hold off for a week
start of thread is
[22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jan/0063.htm
l
[22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jan/0063.html
<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-54: doctype-legacy-compat from Sam Ruby on
2009-01-08 (public-html@w3.org from January 2009) (at lists.w3.org)
-1 hold off for a week
<masinter> +1 hold off, "about:" scheme is unregistered
<hober> How about a tag: URI?
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to request registration about:
<Julian> Julian: the alternate doctype should be accepted as valid,
otherwise there's no point in adding it.
<hober> tag:w3.org,2009-01:sgml-compat or some-such
DanC: I'm happy to consider this done provided someone volunteers to
get about: registered as a URI scheme
Masinter: that could be tricky... might need a registry of values
<gsnedders> hober: That seems too long
<hsivonen> hober, that date is dangerously close to a version number
action-91 due next week
<trackbot> ACTION-91 Propose 'legacy-compat' and report on feedback
due date now next week
<hober> IIRC you need at least the year, so I guess s/-01// would
work too
(er... trackbot???)
ISSUE-13 (handling-http-401-status)
<zcorpan> putting a date in there means you have to google for it
(because it's impossible to remember all magic dates in doctypes,
namespaces, etc)
Masinter: I'd like us to review http [?]
... we talked about taking origin out... should we do that here?
<MikeSmith> title: HTML WG weekly telcon
DanC: I gather Hickson took the 401 stuff out after some
experimentation
Julian: yes, that text is gone...
<masinter> thanks, that was my question
Julian: I've been following Thomas Broyer's IETF ID; I gather a new
draft is in progress
... what would a decision to postpone mean?
Sam: I'd move this back to RAISED if we don't have a concrete
proposal
DanC: when I proposed to postpone, I meant "not in HTML5", i.e.
RESOLVED WONTFIX
Masinter: seems addressed elsewhere, to me
DanC: how does Thomas Broyer's proposal work? browser builder
interest?
Julian: aside from a bug in opera, it doesn't require any browser
builder changes
... it introduces a 'cookie' auth scheme...
<rubys> I'd like to move on in a minute or two...
<rubys> doesn't sound like the status is CLOSED or POSTPONED
(I can't seem to get Julain to tell me who is in the critical path
for deployment. who changes from 200 to 4xx? webmasters? any big
webmasters lined up to do this?)
Sam: so we can move this back to RAISED until further work is
available
action-86 due 1 June 2009
<trackbot> ACTION-86 Review Thomas Broyer's IETF ID to see if we can
postpone ISSUE-13 due date now 1 June 2009
issue-31 missing-alt
<pimpbot> Title: HTML WG weekly telcon -- 22 Jan 2009 (at
www.w3.org)
Matt: yes, the WAI coordination group met and decided to put
something to draft a position... in a couple weeks
<Julian> DanC, users of web servers would need to change their code
to return 401/WWW-Authenticate: Cookie instead of 200.
Sam: lacking a concrete proposal, let's move this issue to RAISED,
OK?
ACTION-98 due 5 Feb 2009
<trackbot> ACTION-98 Discuss missing-alt with the WAI CG and report
back due date now 5 Feb 2009
<rubys> change Issue-31 state to RAISED and move the date on
action-98 out two weeks, any objections?
ACTION-93?
<trackbot> ACTION-93 -- Larry Masinter to make a proposal on
doctypes and versioning -- due 2009-01-29 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [23]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/93
[23] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/93
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-93 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
<MikeSmith> action-76?
<trackbot> ACTION-76 -- Chris Wilson to create poll on issue-32,
based on Joshue's page from action-66 -- due 2009-01-31 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [24]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/76
[24] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/76
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-76 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
ISSUE-37 (html-svg-mathml)
Doug: I expect progress today and next thu on ACTION-94 (
... I've been experimenting with <img> vs <object>, and
<foreignObject>
<oedipus> shepazu, i am intrigued by your philosophy and would like
to subscribe to your newsletter
ISSUE-60 (html5-xhtml-namespace)
ACTION-79?
<trackbot> ACTION-79 -- Sam Ruby to - send email to spark issue-60
-- due 2009-02-13 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [25]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/79
[25] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/79
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-79 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
Sam: this is on my stack, but not high
LMM: why postpone?
Sam: if anybody wants it, fine by me...
LMM: OK, I'll take it
<oedipus> shepazu, let me know if i can help by porting info to:
[26]http://esw.w3.org/topic/PF/XTech/HTML5/MathMLinHTML5
[26] http://esw.w3.org/topic/PF/XTech/HTML5/MathMLinHTML5
<pimpbot> Title: PF/XTech/HTML5/MathMLinHTML5 - ESW Wiki (at
esw.w3.org)
ISSUE-55 (head-profile)
ACTION-75?
<trackbot> ACTION-75 -- Michael(tm) Smith to raise question to group
about Yes, leave @profile out, No, re-add it -- and cite Hixie's
summary of the discussion -- due 2009-02-19 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [27]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/75
[27] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/75
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-75 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
Mike: We don't seem to have consensus
<inserted> ScribeNick: oedipus
<inserted> ScribeNick: oedipus
DanC: took this action because didn't think more discussion would
change anyone's mind; that's why the action is important
MS: don't think survey appropriate
DC: don't do a survey, then
MS: basing decisions on results of surveys is best
DC: putting question to people may be done via email
MS: sending email and trying to evaluate results of email discussion
DC: choice of survey: informational and
speak-now-or-forever-hold-your piece
<Joshue> JOC: Well the proposed survey for the summary attribute is
its last recourse for a stay of execution. Is it a waste of time?
MS: speculate from examination so far, will have formal objections
to removing @profile
SR: will get worse than that - base of zero and what works on web
DC: should withdraw this action because MikeSmith no longer a chair
SR: second that
<inserted> ScribeNick: DanC
<inserted> ScribeNick: DanC
close action-75
<trackbot> ACTION-75 Raise question to group about Yes, leave
@profile out, No, re-add it -- and cite Hixie's summary of the
discussion closed
<inserted> ScribeNick: oedipus
MS: happy to have action withdrawn;
SR: could move to RAISED or POSTPONED
DC: moving to POSTPONED is giving another week for email review
SR: someone needs to take an action
DC: how do you propose we move forward
SR: issue raised; differing opinions as how to resolve; further
discussion likely to be circular
LM: anyone change their mind?
SR: wary of action item with no one assigned to it
MS: volunteer to review issue and come up with recommendation
<inserted> ScribeNick: DanC
LMM: I'm willing to review the issue and make a proposal in 2 weeks
oedipus, are you volunteering to clean up the minutes? if not,
please stop
<scribe> ACTION: masinter to review @profile due 2 weeks [recorded
in [28]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-99 - Review @profile due 2 weeks [on Larry
Masinter - due 2009-01-29].
ISSUE-56 (urls-webarch):
DanC: the funding negotiation I've been doing with adobe about
authoring materials is done, so this URI stuff might get a little
lower priority
LMM: I'm willing to help with the URI stuff
ISSUE-13 (handling-http-401-status)
LMM: [missed]
... adam posted a link to the new IETF draft
<masinter> [29]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-abarth-origin-00
[29] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-abarth-origin-00
<pimpbot> Title: draft-abarth-origin-00 - The HTTP Origin Header (at
tools.ietf.org)
(I don't see Adam's msg)
<pimpbot> Title: HTML WG weekly telcon -- 22 Jan 2009 (at
www.w3.org)
Sam: let's adjourn. I expect discussion on [chinese menu numbers]
<dsinger> bye
Sam, I think it's recording what you expect discussion on, with
subject keywords, not just numbers... repeat, please?
<Julian> issue-59, action-77
<Julian> issue-54, action-91
<Julian> as far as I recall
thanks
Sam: I expect discussion on ISSUE-59 (normative-language-reference),
ISSUE-54 doctype-legacy-compat
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: masinter to review @profile due 2 weeks [recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [31]scribe.perl version 1.133
([32]CVS log)
$Date: 2009/01/22 18:14:59 $
_________________________________________________________
[31] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[32] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 23 January 2009 14:32:05 UTC