See also: IRC log
<Stuart> scribe: Ashok Malhotra
<Stuart> scribenick: Ashok
Stuart: still missing minutes from 5/19
HT: I'll do them Tuesday
SW: Comments on the agenda?
HT: I have to leave in 45 mts. Can we move up tagSoup?
RESOLUTION: Minutes from 5/15 approved
<DanC> looks ok to me http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-issue-tracking/2007Dec/0002.html
<ht> Note that the raw minutes for 19 May are online as http://www.w3.org/2008/05/19-tagmem-irc.{txt,html,rdf}
Next mtg June 4
Regrets DaveO, Ashok
<DanC> Regrets 5 June from me
Regrets from Tim the following week
SW: New items?
... I posted some personal comments on CURIE last calls
<jar> http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2008/05/28/xri_solves_what_real_problems
DO: I posted a link to my blog where I pointed out that XRI do not discuss what problem they solve
<timbl> ... what the OpenID process is
DO: HT we were working on a joint document ...
HT: I will not be able to get to it before tomorrow's vote
<Zakim> timbl, you wanted to ask if anyone knows
DO: Please send to me ... I'll try and finish and publish
SW: Are you clear abt attributions on the combined document?
DO: I will publish over my name
<DanC> action-150?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-150 -- David Orchard to finish refs etc on passwords in the clear finding -- due 2008-05-27 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/150
DO: I have the ball but no progress
<DanC> ... seems pretty clear about who has the ball
<DanC> ... though an updated due date might help
SW: Tim you had an action to write somethjing
TimBL: I got through a third ... not sure when I can get to it ... perhaps next week
Can't see it happening before June 6
<DanC> action-145?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-145 -- Tim Berners-Lee to add public prose around his slides at the AC meeting to make the case for extensiblity and flexible XML, due 29 May -- due 2008-06-06 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/145
SW: Due date COB Friday June 6
... HT where are we ?
HT: One new fact -- the DOM you get when you call setAtt on a XML doc .... is different from the DOM you get when you read the doc in
<Norm> O! For the love of! We're going to be constrained by the broken DOM APIs?
<DanC> yes, norm, just like all the web developers out there. Why wouldn't we be?
If you delete an att and then set it you get a DOM node with different properties
<Norm> Sigh. Right. Nevermind. I'm a little frustrated today, I guess.
HT: This is not surprising ... DOM is very underspecified
Aaron L is now opposed
We have not heard from Microsoft
Don't know abt Apple and Opera
Noah: We did hear from Chris Wilson
<DanC> ah... from Chris W. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008May/0117.html
HT: I'm feeling pretty ground down
... no one said "isn't this worth working on"
... This is a judgement call .. I have failed to persuade the
implementers
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask where Henry actually stands as a result of all this email discussion
Noah: We shd be careful what we say in wrapping this up
Finding a way that is sensitive and thoughtful will pay dividends
TimBL: It will be aria- for
everything?
... Can we say to ARIA go ahead we have had enough discussion
HT: They cannot add to HTML spec as they don't own it
<DanC> (W3C has chartered several specs that tell you what HTML is. They conflict. Whee!)
Noah: They also say they will use aria: in XML
<Stuart> I think this one is relevant: http://www.w3.org/mid/E3DDF3D6-EFD7-4017-A00E-0FD343A14B70@IEEE.org
HT: They are backing off from: aria- in HTML and and aria: in XML?
SW: ARIA is asking whether TAG will obstruct progress ... we shd say we are not planning on obstructing progress of ARIA
TimBL: Saying what HT just said
<noah> > I am therefore (re-)proposing that the attributes be defined in a
<noah> > single form, with a set of local name that all begin with
<noah> > "aria-" (in an attempt to avoid clashes with other attributes whose
<noah> > canonical namespace is the empty string) and with the empty string
<noah> > as their namespace identifier, in order to work the same in both
<noah> > HTML and XML languages without requiring anyone to remember any
<noah> > special magic tricks for CSS, DOM scripting, or anything else.
HT: I'm hearing aria- everywhere
<noah> The middle ground that seems sort of maybe ok is aria- in HTML, and perhaps silent on XML and other non-HTML languages. Suggesting aria- in XML seems more troubling to me.
DO: I cannot even stomach even abstaining on something that makes - the namespace separator
<timbl> and versioning
SW: Q: Is there anyone who cannot live with aria- in HTML as proposed by ARIA WG ?
DO: That is an unreasonable question
.. that not what ARIA propose
... I cannot live with something that proposes - in both HTML and
XML
... I could live with - for HTML and : for XML
TimBL: Need to have same thing in HTML and XML -- DOM is the same
<ht> I think we have to acknowledge that HTML and XHTML will travel together, and only the _other_ XML languages are in play
<jar> (following consequences of what Tim's saying) maybe in XHTML you would have a choice between aria: and aria- ? the first if you import the aria namespace, the latter if you import the aria namespace?
<Norm> It seems to me that you'd want aria- to work on <svg:circle too, so the inherited namespace proposal doens't seem to help.
SW: We need a concrete proposal
TimBL: Dave can we agree to let them to add attributes like 'rel' was added
DO: Why have aria-, why not just pick names that don't clash?
TimBL: We reserve judgement on what happens in future abt HTML versioning and modularity.
DO: How many things are there in ARIA?
TimBL: Abt 30
DO: Change names for those whose names clash and use barenames
<jar> I like the approach of doing without the aria- prefix (that DO articulated)
DanC: They say we have looked at it and it's coherent but not worth it -- ARIA has recognition -- extra characters do not cost much
<jar> blah.
DO: Norm, what do you think?
Norm: I'm conflicted whether to object and be overruled or go along with a flawed proposal
<DanC> (re-reading, yes, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Apr/0226.html is still my position; I'm not sure it makes sense as a position/question for the group)
Norm: There may be a small chance we can get them to do something reasonable
<jar> How about, rather than object or accept, just publish a neutral note that says what we think without claiming to have authority?
<timbl> Proposal1: The TAG suggests that the WAI-PF go ahead and add attributes into the HTML5 spec, using "aria-" as a prefix with liaison with the HTMLWG. That this in no way endorses the use of the same attributes with other specs, nor is this taken as being a solution for HTML versioning and modularization which still is an important ongoing issues.
Norm: I want to try and maintain what credibility we can
SW: It is hard to get them to change once things are deployed
<DanC> Proposal1 works for me
<DanC> ... though the WAI PF's current work isn't scoped to HTML, AFAIK
Noah: I don't object as far as it
goes
... Distributed extesibility remains a goal ....
... Does not mention XML
<noah> How ahout: Distributed extensibility remains an important goal for languages used on the Web, and for XML languages in particular. The TAG hopes to work with the community to strike the right balance between achieving that for languages other than ARIA and meeting the practical needs of the HTMl community.
<Norm> The TAG accepts that the most pragmatic short-term approach for WAI-PF is to go ahead and add attributes into the HTML5 spec, using names that begin "aria-" in liaison with the HTMLWG. This in no way endorses the use of the same attributes with other specs, or any XML specs, nor is this taken as being a solution for HTML versioning and modularization which still is an important ongoing issue. Distributed extensibility remains an important goal for languages used on the Web, and for XML languages in particular. The TAG hopes to work with the community to strike the right balance between achieving that, and meeting the practical needs of the HTMl community.
<DanC> as I explained in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Apr/0226.html , ARIA too a decentralized approach, and after a period of experimentation, took up the cost of a *centralized* approach.
TimBl: add "HTML versioning, HTML modularization and HTML to XML conversions are outstanding"
<Norm> The TAG accepts that the most pragmatic short-term approach for WAI-PF is to go ahead and add attributes into the HTML5 spec, using names that begin "aria-" in liaison with the HTMLWG. This in no way endorses the use of the same attributes with other specs, or any XML specs, nor is this taken as being a solution for HTML versioning, HTML modularization, or HTML to XML conversions which are still open. Distributed extensibility remains an important goal for languag
<Norm> es used on the Web, and for XML languages in particular. The TAG hopes to work with the community to strike the right balance between achieving that, and meeting the practical needs of the HTMl community.
DanC: Henry wanted to look at it ... are you going to decide w/o him?
SW: I suggest we create a TAG position subject to approval by HT and Raman
Noah: Let's decide and ask HT and Raman to object in a day or two if they have a concern
SW: Is there anyone on call who cannot live with the above resolution?
No one replies
Anyone want to abstain?
No one replies
RESOLUTION: to adopt the above position (from Norm) subject to confirmation from Henry and Raman
SW: I shall mail HT and Raman on the tag list.
<scribe> ACTION: Stuart to check with Henry and Raman as whether they agree with the position [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/05/29-minutes#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-160 - Check with Henry and Raman as whether they agree with the position [on Stuart Williams - due 2008-06-05].
SW: How do we communicate our position?
Noah: I think we should send mail, say, by Monday
SW: I will do that
<DanC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008May/0087.html
There is a list of questions
DanC: I've looked at the list ... it's a mix of HTML. editorial and architectural principles
SW: Asks about using the remaining 15 minutes
Decision not to discus versioning finding today
<Zakim> Norm, you wanted to make a meta comment about the list
Norm: The mixture of questions is an indication that the spec is poorly modularized
TimBL: Let's make those editorial requests
<Norm> I'm not sure I'd have characterized that as an editorial request; I'll have to consider my phrasing
<DanC> modularizing the spec is editorial work; it's not a request to change the design/language, just to change the explanation of it
Everything is in the Accept Set
TimBL: These are the tags ... everything else is ignored
Fuzzy boundary between errors and what is ignored
Noah: Using the word 'error' on something that is in the language bothers me
<DanC> I suppose this bullet is relevant to defined/accept sets: "* The distinction between Ua requirements and authoring requirements"
Noah: This impacts the versioning finding ... we shd look at it
SW: Do we need to respond or ask for clarification ....
DaveO: We shd pick a few impt questions
DanC: I wanted TAG to take up content type and sniffing
SW: Continue on this ... please take
a look at it and think abt it.
... Discusses meeting during TPAC
... Adjourned