HTML WG Weekly

16 Nov 2007

See also: IRC log


JulianR, Gregory_Rosmaita, DanC, hsivonen, Sam, ChrisWilson, anne, aaronlev


Convene HTML WG meeting of 2007-11-16T17:00:00Z

<scribe> scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita

<scribe> scribenick: oedipus

GJR: to coordinate some IRC time to discuss HTML5 stylesheet issues with the editors/interested parties -- a limited color pallatte using named colors needs some negotiation (and some eyeballs) and i'm still testing actual support for CSS generated text using :before and :after

<DanC> 22 Nov telcon cancelled

CW: skip next week's meeting -- next meeting 29 November 2007 at 1700z

ISSUE-18 html-design-principles HTML Design Principles

<DanC> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/18 HTML Design Principles

DanC: migrated issues to issue tracker -- issue 18
... completed action to email negative responders
... Mike(tm)Smith still needs to compile minutes from saturday's HTML f2f session
... mjs Action 20 completed
... explores for a "comments" mailing list

<DanC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/

DanC: outside feedback on HDP should be sent to public-html-comments@w3.org

ISSUE-19 html5-spec HTML 5 specification release(s)

<DanC> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/19

DanC: had conversation with PTaylor about formal objection - action done
... completed action to email negative and non-responders - done

Chairs have said the question does not carry -- WG will keep working on spec

<DanC> DanC found out non-responders are not ok to publish

Anne: graphics API a problem?

DanC: publication starts the clock on W3C process

Anne?/Henri?: deadline? make something available?

<hsivonen> s/Anne\?\/Henri\?/Anne/

DanC: like those who responded no to releasing draft to explain comments on questions; question may need to be refined

ISSUE-15 immediate-mode-graphics requirement for Immediate Mode Graphics and canvas element

DanC: ChrisW get info from MS (10 december deadline); DanC put question to WG http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/req-gapi-canvas/

Anne: how does modification of activity affect charter? results clear -- if say "yes" then might be changed

DanC: question is "who is everyone" -- question to HTML WG and question to W3C; feedback at TPAC was that this issue is in scope; not critical path for denying discussions

Anne: membership ok with it, can we carry on as usual?

DanC: presuming all goes well, continue on in parallell

JulianR: can answer in week

Henri: can answer in week; question posed isn't what i want answered -- 3 of top 4 already implementing

ChrisW: questions 3 out of 4

DanC: a lot of people have made up their mind, but the question still has to be fielded

ChrisW: in scope of WebAPI or not? 3 of 4 implemented shouldn't make issue one for HTML WG -- question whether covered by charter or patent policy; some implementors don't believe charter needs to be implemented, but that is my gut feeling

DanC: considering doing an informal survey in parallel with formal survey; CANVAS tag in HTML WG and CANVAS tag in HTML WG or other WG? if formal question doesn't carry, still gaining info

<ChrisWilson> My point is that 3 out of 4 implementers implementing means this IS in scope of "the platform"; the question, to my mind, is whether this is covered by our charter and therefore covered by the patent policy.

DanC: been suggested that html5 spec should have CANVAS in it and cite document with graphics API -- question of whether HTML WG develops document or another WG develops document

<ChrisWilson> The goal in creating a W3C WG with a patent policy is to explicitly lay out what that WG is going to do, so companies getting involved in the WG know what IP they may be offering up.

Anne: rather keep it in HTML WG; willing to answer survey

<ChrisWilson> Charters cannot be open-ended.

<Lachy> isn't everything in the spec covered by the patent policy, regardless of whether it's explicitly in the charter?

JulianR: spec already too complex -- need to seriously discuss way to take things out and harmonize with existing specs

GJR: spec too complex, but can answer any survey

<ChrisWilson> Lachy, everything in the spec IS covered by the patent policy. Joining a working group cannot be opening a company's entire patent portfolio in a free-for-all, or those with large patent portfolios would be foolish to participate at all - weakening the point of having a patent policy.

Henri: formal survey first, then consider steps to separate API portions of spec; question of whether anything should be taken out of spec dependent upon who is going to edit that portion of spec -- do we have expertise?

SamR: can't answer within week; support informal survey; do have charter concerns

<Lachy> so the real question is, does Microsoft have patents that they do not want to give up, but which they would be forced to if canvas were included?

ChrisW: yes, can answer question

AaronL: not likely to have opinion now

<rubys> oedipus: I said I CAN answer within a week

<DanC> trackbot-ng,

<DanC> trackbot-ng, status

<ChrisWilson> Lachy, without having a charter that scopes the WG's specifications, I can't know the answer to that question.

<DanC> ACTION: Dan consider informal survey on canvas tactics [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-21 - Consider informal survey on canvas tactics [on Dan Connolly - due 2007-11-23].

SCRIBE'S NOTE: Sam Ruby CAN answer within a week

<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to suggest a survey with some options in parallel

ISSUE-14 aria-role Integration of WAI-ARIA roles into HTML5

<ChrisWilson> With the charter we have now, our legal staff did not investigate our graphics patents.

<DanC> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/14

DanC: action on URI extensibility -

<DanC> some progress: http://www.w3.org/QA/2007/11/a_story_about_namespaces_mime.html

AaronL: hard time figuring out what was being proposed

DanC: specific questions?

<Lachy> ChrisWilson, didn't the legal department look at the existing whatwg spec, so that they would have a better idea of what to look for, rather than relying on the vague charter?

<DanC> http://norman.walsh.name/2007/11/12/implNamespaces

AaronL: page to other links, couldn't ascertain what was DanC's contribution

<ChrisWilson> Lachy, the WHATWG spec is not our charter.

<ChrisWilson> Nor has the WHATWG spec been stable in that time frame.

<rubys> concrete charters tend to trump draft specs

AaronL: summary, please?

<ChrisWilson> (i.e. not added features)

DanC: let WG members read at leisure; may do more work on page to make clearer

<Zakim> hsivonen, you wanted to talk about Norm Walsh's blog post

Henri: NormW's post suggests implicit namespaces in parser; considering constraints of aria- proposal don't think what NormW wrote satisfies requirements; can't do something to make DOM APIs act differently

DanC: can if want to

Henri: then introduce discrepancy in DOM scripting; changes way XML is parsed to infer namespaces from content-type deeper change than previously proposed; want not to afftect DOM API scripting -- could define a URI mapping for apps that need it for GRDDL to RDF mapping without affecting the DOM

DanC: couple of steps ahead of me -- good feedback

AaronL: will speak with Henri offline

DanC: cost to changing APIs -- still thinking through

scribe's note: DanC and MichaelC's actions continued

DanC: next telecon not until 2 weeks

AaronL: clarity always welcome; asked Doug Schepers and Bill for date by which they will decide aria- ; told me tied to other issues and gave no date

GJR: PF yesterday discussed what next steps can take to further discussion

<DanC> good tests? http://simon.html5.org/test/aria/

<DanC> <div aria="checkbox">

<DanC> http://simon.html5.org/test/aria/role/

AaronL: I do not want to change "role" to "aria"

<aaronlev> http://www.mozilla.org/access/dhtml/new/checkbox

<anne> http://simon.html5.org/test/aria/states/001.htm


<hsivonen> DanC, it is about <div role='checkbox'> or <div aria='checkbox'>

GJR: comparative tests needed?

DanC: yes

GJR: will communicate back to PF

AaronL: like tests with role="checkbox"

<DanC> DanC: thanks; I'll study http://simon.html5.org/test/aria/states/001.htm and http://www.mozilla.org/access/dhtml/new/checkbox

UIUC ARIA Tests: http://test.cita.uiuc.edu/aria/

<DanC> s/SVG does not want/I do not want/

AaronL: clarifies -- not SVG WG, but my impression of what SVG is saying

<DanC> aaronlev: I don't recommend the UIUC tests

<hsivonen> DanC, did you mean test cases or proposed syntax examples?

GJR: need comparative tests of single concept using diff markup proposals

<DanC> I tend to call them tests; sorry if that's confusing

AaronL: don't think there is controversy save for attribute name "role" and "aria"

DanC: would like comparative tests

<Hixie> DanC: i can't answer the canvas question. I strongly feel that a canvas API is already in scope, and I strongly object to reopening the charter rathole. But the question asks whether I think it is in scope and says that a "yes" answer reopens the rathole.

<scribe> ACTION: GJR to coordinate comparative tests using competing ARIA proposals [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-minutes.html#action02]

<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask for a test pointer

DanC: AlG promised that test materials used at HTML f2f would be given stable URIs

ISSUE-16 offline-applications-sql offline applications and data synchronization

<DanC> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/16

GJR: will follow up with PF test suite builders/maintainers

<DanC> http://dev.w3.org/html5/offline-webapps/ Editor's Draft 11 November 2007

Anne action completed with editor's draft of 11 november

ChrisW: not seen yet

DanC: good to have the document ready; like a few more keywords in abstract: caching, SQL

Anne: can add -- pretty clear, i think

DanC: suggests using ToC to populate abstract

SamR: plan to review

DanC: page and a half

SamR: will review this weekend

<scribe> ACTION: SamRuby review oflline-webapps by monday, 19 november 2007 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - SamRuby

<DanC> trackbot-ng, status

<scribe> ACTION: Julian review offline-webapps by monday, 19 november 2007 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-22 - Review offline-webapps by monday, 19 november 2007 [on Julian Reschke - due 2007-11-23].

ChrisW: don't have an opinion; from another perspective, offline and SQL not in charter

DanC: publication a natural way to start conversation; Anne, thinking of note or working draft?

Anne: note

DanC: inclined to publish in a few weeks

Anne: reasonable

face-to-face meeting 8-10 November, review

outcome of HTML for authors session

DanC: record of session?

<hsivonen> http://www.w3.org/2007/11/09-html-wg-minutes.html

<mjs> our charter does in fact contain "Data storage APIs"

DanC: is it an accurate/reasonable catch of what transpired?

<ChrisWilson> ..."if the WebAPI WG fails to deliver."

DanC: 2 actions noted in minutes

<DanC> 1 is a dup

<DanC> ah... it's ACTION-5 by tracker

<Hixie> the webapi wg has failed to deliver their own deliverables, let alone ours

Henri: not sure if reached some kind of agreement; no consensus on best practices --

<ChrisWilson> Have they stated that to the W3C staff?

DanC: read not a call to create task force, but a proposal via email from KarlD

<Hixie> ChrisWilson: yes

<ChrisWilson> Can you send a pointer?

DanC: moves to adjourn

scribe's note: NO dissent

Henri: plan on not staying around to check records

ChrisW: seconds motion to adjourn


<hsivonen> not to stay around

SamR: please don't add to issue tracking just yet -- shortly

<Hixie> ChrisWilson, look at any status e-mail in hcg

<anne> Yeah, it's pretty clear that the Web API WG has not enough volunteers to edit

<ChrisWilson> oedipus, yes and yes.

thanks ChrisW -- anne, i am joining WebAPI

<ChrisWilson> It's pretty clear we suffer from the same problem.

<anne> it seems that Hixie is doing just fine

<anne> to me, anyway

<anne> ChrisWilson, could you perhaps e-mail the list with what you consider to be out of scope?

<ChrisWilson> ? Anything not captured in the charter?

<anne> ChrisWilson, basically, yeah

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Dan consider informal survey on canvas tactics [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: GJR to coordinate comparative tests using competing ARIA proposals [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Julian review offline-webapps by monday, 19 november 2007 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: SamRuby review oflline-webapps by monday, 19 november 2007 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-html-wg-minutes.html#action03]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.128 (CVS log)
$Date: 2007/11/16 20:42:29 $