See also: IRC log
<smedero> Wow, there are a lot of overdue actions. :-/
<smedero> most aren't toooo overdue though.
minutes of previous meeting: http://www.w3.org/2008/05/29-html-wg-minutes.html
<oedipus> GJR gives big plus one to mikeTMsmith's bugzilla proposal (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Jun/0022.html)
<Julian> minutes look fine.
<oedipus> HTML5 homepage question: what is source of the blockquote at: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/#issues? there is no "cite" attribute, and blockquotes were EXPLICITLY deprecated for presentational effect in HTML4 (and that has not changed with HTML5) -- if this isn't a direct quote from a referencable document, then it shouldn't be in a blockquote, which lends the appearance of it being an excerpt from an "official" statement -- if that is the case, then the refer
<scribe> Scribe: MikeSmith
<scribe> Scribenick: MikeSmith
recapping last week's call
we discussed issue-27
issue-27?
<trackbot> ISSUE-27 -- @rel value ownership, registry consideration -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/27
also issue-31?
<Julian> issue-27: haven't heard back from MNot yet.
issue-31?
<trackbot> ISSUE-31 -- Should img without alt ever be conforming -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/31
we also publications
to summarize publications, I had planned to publish next HTML5 WD this week, but will need to move to Monday
anne says html4-differences is ready to go
<anne> MS: planning to make multipage the default version
I will propose to use html5-pubnotes as short name for the pubnotes doc, and get to ChrisL tonight for transition approval
<oedipus> FYI: ACTION 54 (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/54) updated to reflect current status of action item
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda
looking at overdue actions
action-54?
<trackbot> ACTION-54 -- Gregory Rosmaita to work with SteveF draft text for HTML 5 spec to require producers/authors to include @alt on img elements -- due 2008-05-29 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/54
<Laura> Steve, Josh, and I have started work on a second draft for Action 54.
<Laura> http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/Action54AltAttributeSecondDraft
oedipus: I just updated... Laura is here
Laura: we have been working on
the 2nd draft
... waiting for more replies, beginning to incorporate comments
me have received
<Laura> We are beginning to incorporate First Draft Comments:
<Laura> http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/Action54AltAttributeDiscussion
<Laura> We are still waiting for a reply from PFWG for this action item regarding several issues:
<Laura> http://tinyurl.com/48uyqv
<Laura> http://tinyurl.com/3v68tn
<Laura> One of the biggest changes is that we have removed the majority of the usage examples and code samples. Usage examples and code samples from the Action 54 first draft are being refined and most have now been submitted as Techniques for WCAG 2.0. If they are accepted, the action 54 document will link to them there. As Jason said in his comment, a format specification is not a tutorial. Including detailed guidance in ALT attribute techniques could be seen as usurping the role of WCAG 2.0 and its techniques documents. PF has also pointed out, “WCAG WG is chartered to set Accessibility guidelines and HTML WG is not”.
<Laura> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0082.html
<Laura> The W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) is the accessibility authority.
<Laura> Submission for WCAG 2.0. Techniques
<Laura> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/TECHS-SUBMIT/
<Laura> Action 54 first draft
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 54
<Laura> http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/Action54AltAttribute
<oedipus> "the majority of the usage examples and code samples. Usage examples and code samples from the Action 54 first draft are being refined and most have now been submitted as Techniques for WCAG 2.0"
Laura: we removed some use-case code samples (because it's not in our realm to decide what is accessible and what's not)
<oedipus> awaiting review from PF
Laura: next step we have submitted most of our our usage examples and code samples to WAI be considered for Techniques for WCAG 2.0.
<joshue> good
oedipus: I'm working on trying to
set up a specific HTML5-focused TF within the PFWG
... and Al has put out feelers to see who from the HTML WG
might be willing to participate in that
... so that we can find a way to move forward and quit talking
past each other
... action-54 will take some more time
Steve_f: yeah, a couple more weeks
<joshue> Yes, it will take some more time
oedipus: I will communicate with Al about it later today and try to accelerate the process of getting the review back to you
action-56?
<trackbot> ACTION-56 -- Chris Wilson to wilson to follow up with Forms WG to make sure they understand this plan of action by 5/1/2008 -- due 2008-05-29 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/56
MikeSmith: oedipus, anne: please give brief status on what the state of things are with the Forms TF
oedipus: the status at last telcon was that the chairs were going to talk and change it to a 7-person TF instead of 6-person TF
<hober> Where would the seventh person come from?
<oedipus> that is what the chairs were to discuss (chrisW, danC, and JohnB)
shepazu: work on this from the Forms WG side has been going on
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XForms_Future_Features
shepazu: if the HTML WG members have not put work into [trying to engage with the Forms WG]
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms11/
anne: the HTML WG members have actually put work into it; e.g., Maciej has put forward a proposal
shepazu: it should just be more bilateral
<oedipus> GJR notes that Forms WG is working on specifics, HTML WG interpreted TF focus as more abstract alignment
anne: yeah, I agree
... we've invested quite a bit of effort and if there's no
outcome from the TF
shepazu: the possibility remains that the HTML WG can engage directly with Forms WG
<shepazu> maybe the Forms TF should be dissolved if it's not effective, and a new liaison should be attempted
anne: forms are definitely in our scope
<shepazu> if a group can't operate within the scope of its charter, maybe the charter is wrong :)
<oedipus> yes, shepazu, yes!!!
<anne> the charter says "Forms and ..." at the start of some bullet point in section 2.1
<oedipus> it's not anyone's fault, but a misalignment of assumptions
action-56?
<trackbot> ACTION-56 -- Chris Wilson to wilson to follow up with Forms WG to make sure they understand this plan of action by 5/1/2008 -- due 2008-06-12 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/56
oedipus: by next telcon I will have posted something for discussion in the TF
action-58?
<trackbot> ACTION-58 -- Anne van Kesteren to update public-html on Offline Web Applications extended-abstract, addressing a few bits of outstanding feedback -- due 2008-05-29 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/58
<anne> close ACTION-58
<trackbot> ACTION-58 Update public-html on Offline Web Applications extended-abstract, addressing a few bits of outstanding feedback closed
<anne> ACTION-58 resulted in http://www.w3.org/TR/offline-webapps/
<anne> style attribute: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/embedded.html#the-style
<oedipus> um, shouldn't we be pointing to the W3C draft?
<anne> W3C doesn't have multipage yet, doesn't really matter either way though, as they're identical
<oedipus> not precisely - there is a difference in the patent policy for one
<anne> that shouldn't affect review of changes :)
A change was made to the spec to address the issue, and change was to the satisfcation of Daniel Glazman.
<oedipus> when will W3C have a multi-page view -- it's been discussed for months now...
action-61?
<trackbot> ACTION-61 -- Dan Connolly to ensure HTML WG responds to PF WG on Omitting alt Attribute http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0082.html -- due 2008-05-31 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/61
<smedero> oedipus: it is being worked on - I believe the next WD publication will address it
oedipus: I think this overlaps
with 54
... Dan has been active in conversations with PF on this
<oedipus> gjr thinks the "response" alluded to in 61 is ACTION 54
<smedero> (oedipus: my comments refer to the multipage version of the spec....)
<oedipus> thanks, smedero
<oedipus> implications of namespacing / aria syntax / embedding in HTML5 and the XML serialization of HTML5
<oedipus> thanks philip
action-64?
<trackbot> ACTION-64 -- Dan Connolly to update teleconference schedule to just one time -- due 2008-05-29 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/64
<anne> DS: working on getting a document together for SVG in HTML integration
<anne> DS: sorry it's taking so long
<anne> DS: working on different proposals, no concrete pointers
Lachy: you around
?
action-34?
<trackbot> ACTION-34 -- Lachlan Hunt to prepare "Web Developer's Guide to HTML5" for publication in some way, as discussed on 2007-11-28 phone conference -- due 2008-06-05 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/34
MikeSmith: I'm wondering if we could get Robert on the telcons
oedipus: I will contact him and see
issue-43?
<trackbot> ISSUE-43 -- Enhanced Client-side Image Maps -- RAISED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/43
<robburns> I am here on IRC
robburns: can you call in?
<robburns> I'll try (not sure the state of my internet connection for voice)
<Julian> Mike, you seem to drop off...
<Steve_f> yes
<Steve_f> any better? no
<oedipus> Mike's bugzilla proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Jun/0022.html
<oedipus> micro-issues on bugzilla, meta-issues on tracker? definition of meta-issues?
<Lachy> MikeSmith, yo
<smedero> oedipus: we aren't in full control of the W3C tracker software - the W3C systeam (mostly Dom) manages it and what states are in the system.
<smedero> oedipus: raise was added when several other WGs needed a similar state, not just because we asked for it
<Lachy> MikeSmith, I'm going to be taking a look at the authoring guide this weekend
<oedipus> yes, smedero, but they recently "upgraded" the interface - i think the system could add a "proposed" issue state
<smedero> oedipus: i just want to make the distinction for others clear - it is not like a self-hosted instance of bugzilla where we just go and configure it to our liking.
<oedipus> RB: issues compiled from list discussions that had been dropped or trailed off; reason put together issues -- not individual proposals, but arose form conversation with other WG members but ignored by editor
<oedipus> smedero, ok - systeam is overworked but pretty responsive
<smedero> oedipus: agree on that. systeam is awesome.
<oedipus> RB: what is difference btw these issues and the others in the issue tracker? why one more important than another?
<oedipus> MS: not going to discuss on next week's call; will make decision about issues remaining open by then
<robburns> zakim mute robburns
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda
<oedipus> SF: need process guidelines for use of issue tracker -- what constitutes a raised issue?
Steve_f: I would like to see some process whereby issues that people have raised to have [a clear route] for eventually getting into the Tracker
<oedipus> GJR notes new issues are "Raised" not "Open"
<smedero> yeah it is confusing... again we didn't have much say in the labeling
<Laura> Perhaps the issue is that the issue tracker lacks known policies and procedures?
<smedero> labels are shared across WG projects
<oedipus> what is difference between raised and open -- they are distinct states, are they not?
<smedero> yes
<smedero> sadly RAISED == Bugzilla's OPEN (unverified)
<smedero> OPEN == VERIFIED, picked up by Editor
<smedero> I dunno... I asked that once but didn't get much of a response.
<oedipus> good point, philip - guess it's the same impasse that leaves us stuck with MoinMoin
issue-38?
<trackbot> ISSUE-38 -- Syntax of the style attribute -- RAISED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/38
I think that maybe can be closed
MikeSmith: I will follow up with James about that
<smedero> I should clarify that OPEN == Picked up by Editor, or WG as a whole (in the past that distinction has been left to the discretion of the Chairs)
<oedipus> FIVE MINUTE WARNING
<oedipus> smedero, so RAISED equals PROPOSED?
<robburns> oedipus: that sounds like an adequate tier arrangement of issues already
<oedipus> robburns, agreed
Julian: my impression is that some of them or all of them have been discussed on the list, but the editor has so far ignored feedback from the HTTPbis WG
<oedipus> MikeTMSmith, does RAISED equal PROPOSED and OPEN equal "taken up by editors and/or chairs"
issue-33?
<trackbot> ISSUE-33 -- spec requires non-compliant Referer header -- RAISED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/33
<smedero> I don't have a definitive answer. I think we need some clarification on exactly how the Chairs+Editors intended RAISED to be used. RAISED was added when the Editors asked for some way to discern between things that were in-progress (active working going on) vs. those that they haven't reviewed yet.
<anne> HTML5 only says not to include the Referer header, it doesn't affect the syntax of it, fwiw.
<oedipus> smedero, sounds dangerously close to an "issue" :-)
<anne> see http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/structured.html#hyperlink0 for more information
<oedipus> need syntax / semantic decision for chairs to make -- does raised equal proposed until opened by an editor or chair
<oedipus> if RAISED equals PROPOSED then i retract my plus one to using bugzilla
<anne> http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=1234&to=1235
<anne> change for ping= ^^
anne: that relates to issue-33
<smedero> I think we're having trouble separating a bugzilla style issue tracker vs. a high-level WG issue tracker that is largely there to help the Chairs+Editors+W3 staff facilitate to the WG: for instance a tool to help organize the weekly teleconference agenda
<oedipus> bugzilla useful for micro-issues and micro-discussion
[meeting adjourned]