Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Working Group Teleconference
21 May 2008

See also: IRC log


fantasai, Bert, +1.858.655.aaaa, Molly_Holzschlag, glazou, +1.408.981.aadd, David_Baron, Saloni?, Arron?, Ming, dsinger




<trackbot-ng> Date: 21 May 2008

<dsinger> Dave Singer is on the call and IRC but will have to drop off around 9:30, sorry.

<glazou> "this passcode is not valid" !

<glazou> Bert, help :-)

<glazou> sigh

<Bert> Try the operator

<Bert> "0" I think

just to confirm: passcode: 78953

<glazou> yes

strange, quite a number of fols are on the call now.

<glazou> *0 for operator

<glazou> grrr

<glazou> there's no op

<dsinger> ok, dave moves to relative tme and expects to drop off in +27 mins

<glazou> aaah

<scribe> scribenick: Ming


daniel: got comments from David B. mainly about not having module list
... some add'l comments from the mailing list
... Alex (MS) think the charter is ok
... need Chris Lilley in the loop
... any other comments from CSS WG?

molly: a question: the charter need to be approved by CSS WG, and then put in place?

david B: need to be approved by all W3C

daniel: just a clarification: the charter is not being approved by CSS WG and has not gone to the W3C membership at large
... the charter has been submitted for three weeks, so assume most of WG members are ok
... no response from Apple or Opera, nothing from Charles(?)
... assume the charter is ok with the above mentioned feedbacks
... if any issue, say it now

<Bert> The only official (required) part of the charter process is the review by the W3C members, but the better we prepare the charter in the WG, the more likely it is to pass the W3C membership...

<dsinger> I am checking my apple colleagues (team leaders)...

steve Z.: what does the prioritization mean? I am a bit confused.

daniel: members of WG express their interest but no one would tell the reasonable timeframe for implementation
... interests vs commitment to deliver; impossible to confirm further

steve: my concern is that part of the reason we make no progress, is working on too much things and nothing get done.
... if so, I would vote against the charter;

daniel: maybe a comprise is to restrict the deliverables to be the high priority list of the documents

david S.: make sure that we would have enough resource and dialogue and support would enable progress

molly: how long is the charter in place?

steve: two years

molly: every things on the priority list would be done in two years? right?

steve: if things change, then do a charter revision.

daniel: if a thing is not on the list, does not mean it is not in the scope

fantasai: we can't have absolute list (or commitment); try our best.

david B.: my understanding is the opposite of what you said (daniel); we could work on it if interested; people won't make patent on these things we are interested to work on;

<dsinger> I would like to be very clear whether the charter is a priority list (and other things can be worked on) or whether it is an exhaustive list (and, to be worked on, something must be on the charter). I thought I had previously heard the second.

steve: looking at the charter now.

david b: a risk knocking off the charter of low priority list things, is discouraging people coming to the WG.

molly: on the list and things FYI, both.

david s: we commit to high priority items and willing to work on other low priority items.

steve: we can't publish a working draft until getting director's approval
... not sure what that means

daniel: we can still make revision if needed; and submit new ideas to WG.
... Opera submitted the Medai Query which was not on the list, as an example.

steve: did you go to AC?

daniel: not sure.

steve: the problem I see is that we may go another two years without progress or deliverables

<dsinger> I would be unhappy to see all mention of the medium and low-priority items removed from the charter; we do have items there that we think can be progressed with reasonable support, and we don't want to be told that there isn't time for them because they are not on the charter.

david b: it is something we never done before (i.e. adding new things to the charter via revisioning)

steve: patent policy only went into the charter in the recently(?)
... is it really realistic to add more things to the priority list?

molly: if you remove the things from the charter or the list which is a public document, where people can find them again anywhere?
... add'l (new) resource, won't take core resource away from items committed.

daniel: using a feature(?) being implemented in Safari as an example.

steve: don't see new people doing the work; see same people doing the work

fantasai: leave them in to have an opportunity, while focusing WG resource working on the priority list
... leave them in if they have a chance to release a working draft.

molly: medium or low priority items do not have a deliverable, is that your concern, steve?

daniel: AC voting on the charter with patent policy in mind. that is the key.

molly: don't know necessarily what the deliverables are going to be

fantasai: can't be informtive for the public, need to be normative in the charter.

steve: that is the catch of the patent policy.

daniel: to summarize steve's position:

<dsinger> there is a pretty clear deliverable for our animations and transitions etc.

<fantasai> steve, can you put a pointer to the part of the patent policy that requires explicit deliverables?

daniel: 1. need to have deliverables
... 2. don't want to close the list of activities in WG
... compromise:
... having a list of deliverables, and willing to make revision if new deliverables to be added

<dsinger> can we split the list into items with deliverables defined (sub-divided hi, medium, low) and a list of discussion areas (those without a deliverable yet defined)?

daniel: sounds beauratic (or sounds French)

david S.: for those having deliverables, put them into high, medium, low lists;

david S.: then cateogirze the things are interesting but no identified deliverables, into another group for discussion

david S.: when with working draft or deliverables identified, moving them into priority list then

daniel: AC would perceive CSS WG not effective, still having a too long list and nothing to deliver

fantasai: most of things on the list, having a working draft, though old; question is what to do with them.

daniel: having working draft or willingness, but no time or resource to work on them
... this is about to getting a firm list of items into the charter.
... need to remove things from the list for now; if more things in scope, make a revision

<dsinger> I would take the high-priority list, and those of the medium-priority list that have both (a) an active proponent and (b) a clear deliverable.

daniel: this is the only way to go (forward)

molly: ok, where can those things interesting reside somewhere public have access to?

daniel: see David S.'s IRC comment
... can't solve the issue now; you need to discuss this with your AC rep.
... think David S.'s comment make sense.

<dsinger> we really don't want to 'foist' our animations and transitions on the industry as a fait accompli, without discussion at the w3c

daniel: high priority list + medium p. list with active proponent and deliverable

steve: all things on the list have active proponent and deliverable, so nothing drops.

daniel: clear deliverable path (for medium item)

<dsinger> dave regrets that his 9:30 appointment has arrived

fantasai: commit high priority list and medium list is in scope

<dsinger> I'l get back asap

steve: what does the patent policy say?
... if issue, Adobe may not continue in WG

daniel: in SD, we discuss to have a restricted list of priority items.
... we also say, items in medium or low priority list won't be in the charter.
... can't have a long list of priority items. otherwise, would be the same as before.
... 2nd issue, is patent policy

fantasai: what items should be droped, from Adobe point of view

steve: should focus on high priority list only
... need to ask lawyer (patent policy)

bert: you only commit to those that are published

daniel: if we add items w/o high priority list, once it publishes, patent policy apply

steve: the operating process has changed.

fantasai: the first one on the TR page, would kick the patent policy

steve: for Chair to realistically go through the list and what can be accomplished in this time period

fantasai: even in the last period, there are things gets published.

<dbaron> I can't seem to get a word in... but I think dropping a bunch of the items on the medium priority list off the charter will just force people to work on them outside of the CSS WG.

molly: we want be able to have others to hear what are other things interesting to work on (i.e. in scope)

steve: agree so don't remove anything published on the website
... not against on charter revisioning

<dbaron> I'm also worried that the current modules list is biased because the implementor feedback wasn't normalized, so implementors who put more specs in the "strong interest" category had more influence on the list.

daniel: Chair to discuss with members, and make a proposal to WG

steve: draft section 2.2 and come back to WG

daniel: yes, draft it asap and need WG to comment on immediately
... background-size, for 5 minutes?

fantasai: prefer people to read the issue: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008May/0178.html

any objection for Yahoo rep to join next f-t-f meeting?

no objection

Molly: Alex does not have a problem.

<dbaron> can you not hear me?

daniel: meeting adjourn

david b: 1. drop medium list item would force work outside CSS WG

david b: 2. concern about the process

david b: submit a short list for high priority list; though doing so, I lost influence

steve: did the same way

danie: most people, submit high priority list of 5 items or less

daniel: most people submitted, short list of H.P., long list of M.P., short list of no interest

molly: agree with david b's #1 point.

fantasai: will rely on Chair to keep us on the high priority list
... rather than using charter to do so

daniel: in theory, yes; but, concern about patent
... this is different than how we operate before

fantasai: can we talk to the lawyer as what are concerning the lawyers on patent?

steve: suggest chairs to discuss and drop things from the list

daniel: peter, me will work together with help of Bert.

<dsinger> bye

daniel: will get back to you asap

<salonir> bye

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008/05/21 17:08:09 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133  of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/the members/the W3C members/
Found ScribeNick: Ming
Inferring Scribes: Ming
Default Present: fantasai, Bert, +1.858.655.aaaa, Molly_Holzschlag, glazou, +1.408.981.aadd, David_Baron, Saloni?, Arron?, Ming, dsinger
Present: fantasai Bert +1.858.655.aaaa Molly_Holzschlag glazou +1.408.981.aadd David_Baron Saloni? Arron? Ming dsinger

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 21 May 2008
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/05/21-css-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]