<ChrisWilson> first action pending review: 54 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/54
<Joshue> Can +2 be undropped?
<ChrisWilson> (Gregory's item)
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 2008-06-19 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/54
<ChrisWilson> Joshue, were you +2?
<Joshue> @Chris, I may have been.
<Joshue> Can't hear anything now..
<Joshue> I will ring back in maybe?
<Laura> For action 54 we are still waiting for a reply from the PFWG for Action Item 54 regarding several issues:
<Laura> http://tinyurl.com/48uyqv
<Laura> http://tinyurl.com/3v68tn
<Laura> guidance.
<Laura> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0205.html
<Laura> No timeline was given in Al's email. Request for an Action Item 54 time extension until there is a response from the PFWG.
<DanC> 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 2008-06-19 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/54
<Joshue> +2 is Josh
<oedipus> GJR notes that he has reminded the PFWG that it is the group whose review is pending
<oedipus> GJR trying to get issue addressed today at face2face, but is last day with a heavy agenda
<Laura> Thanks, Gregory.
<oedipus> thank, YOU, laura
action-23?
<trackbot> ACTION-23 -- Gregory Rosmaita to coordinate tests using ARIA -- due 2008-06-21 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/23
<DanC> action-23?
<trackbot> ACTION-23 -- Gregory Rosmaita to coordinate tests using ARIA -- due 2008-06-21 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/23
<ChrisWilson> GJR: yes, I noted that we are discussing later today and moved date.
<oedipus> thanks, ChrisW!
<ChrisWilson> any issues people want to discuss?
<DanC> action-32?
<trackbot> ACTION-32 -- Michael(tm) Smith to change the product name of "HTML 5 authoring guidelines" in the tracker to something else, eventually -- due 2008-01-24 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/32
<DanC> action-56?
<trackbot> ACTION-56 -- Chris Wilson to chris Wilson to work with MikeSmith and DanC on (re)plan of action for forms coordination with Forms WG -- due 2008-06-26 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/56
action-56
action-56?
<trackbot> ACTION-56 -- Chris Wilson to chris Wilson to work with MikeSmith and DanC on (re)plan of action for forms coordination with Forms WG -- due 2008-06-26 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/56
Joshue: want to extend this to
the 24th of July
... waiting for formal response from PFWWWG
<Joshue> We are also awaiting a response from PF
<Laura> Headers Wiki Page
<Laura> http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueTableHeaders
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to bring up error handling in URIs
DanC: URI error handling seems to be what the editor is working on
<Laura> @ Table Summary Wiki Page
<Laura> http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/SummaryForTABLE
<Laura> Advice Request to PFWG
<Laura> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2008Jun/0073.html
DanC: it looks like this is a
case where browsers do something different than what the specs
say ...
... particular case relates to non-ascii chars in URIs ...
<Joshue> Laura has already started working on updating the wiki in relation to @summary. I am organising user tests with screen reader users who will use test cases/real world data tables that use @summary. I hope to offer vidoe footage of the tests to the WG
DanC: Hixie has made some test material available ...
<oedipus> [fyi] TAG "Finding" on Associating Resources with Namespaces (25 June 2008) - http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments/
DanC: I would like to get confirmation that browsers do what has been said ...
<DanC> ... http://esw.w3.org/topic/UriTesting#preview
<DanC> ... http://hixie.ch/tests/adhoc/uri/encoding/
related discussion: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2008Jun/thread.html#msg2
DanC: I can volunteer to give test results for one browser. Any volunteers to test other browsers?
<Julian> I can run with IE, which test?
<ChrisWilson> http://hixie.ch/tests/adhoc/uri/encoding/
<DanC> all the tests in http://hixie.ch/tests/adhoc/uri/encoding/
<Julian> All of them? :-) Arg.
<ChrisWilson> :P
<Julian> Will try.
<DanC> darn; the expected results aren't crystal clear to me in all cases.
<DanC> maybe I'll mail Ian
ChrisWilson: DanC, can you work with Hixie to see what the expected results are?
<ChrisWilson> Any other issues before we take up forms?
<scribe> ACTION: DanC to work with Hixie to confirm what expected results are for http://hixie.ch/tests/adhoc/uri/encoding/ tests [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/26-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-68 - Work with Hixie to confirm what expected results are for http://hixie.ch/tests/adhoc/uri/encoding/ tests [on Dan Connolly - due 2008-07-03].
<ChrisWilson> OK, forms (based on http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/56)
<gsnedders> AFAIK the point of those tests is to find out what browsers do to document it, therefore they have no expected results
ChrisWilson: we have in our charter a requirement related to forms, had a Forms TF that so far has not produced any resolutions
<DanC> I gather he's found out and has expected results in mind as he writes the spec, gsnedders
ChrisWilson: It would be better
at this point to include Web Forms 2.0 in the HTML5 spec
...
... so that we have some stated direction ...
... rather than not having a stated direction at all ...
<Philip> (On the subject of tests, though otherwise entirely off-topic, http://philip.html5.org/tests/canvas/suite/tests/results.html was recently updated and shows how browsers are doing at <canvas>)
DanC: my comment is that there
are some parts of WF 2.0 that I think we should put in, and
some parts we should omit
... e.g., repetition templates ...
ChrisWilson: form data types are
important
... how should we proceed on evaluating what parts of WF 2.0
that should be included and which can possibly be omitted?
<DanC> +1 poll on a section basis
ChrisWilson: I would suggest we put out a poll for incorporating the various sections of WF 2.0
<ChrisWilson> gsnedders: chartered TF runs out next week, doesn't it?
<gsnedders> ChrisWilson: Yeah, true. And they'll have failed to produce their chartered deliverable
<ChrisWilson> ACTION DanC to produce poll
<trackbot> Created ACTION-69 - Produce poll [on Dan Connolly - due 2008-07-03].
<gsnedders> ChrisWilson: Actually, all the charter says is, "The Forms Task Force expects to be done by July 2008."
ChrisWilson: DanC will take a stab at writing up poll on forms, ChrisWilson and MikeSmith will review
<Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to suggest using comment part of poll to allow people to note which parts to omit
<DanC> I had in mind ~4 items
<Julian> uri tests in IE: I see a script error for http://hixie.ch/tests/adhoc/uri/encoding/015.html...
<ChrisWilson> Take up pending review issues:
<Philip> Julian, which version of IE?
<Julian> Philip: IE7
<ChrisWilson> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/3
<ChrisWilson> style-attribute
<DanC> issue-3?
<trackbot> ISSUE-3 -- conformance of element level style attributes -- RAISED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/3
<DanC> this seems worth an "any objections?" mail to the WG.
<DanC> (whee! an actual design decision!)
<dsinger> oops
<Joshue> Gotta go. Thanks.
<ChrisWilson> Bye
<Laura> Editor added Headers to the spec
<Laura> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Mar/0215.html
DanC: I tried a related test case
with v.nu and it gave me a thumbs down
... it appears to consider @headers on td to be valid, but not
on @th
ChrisWilson: we will discuss table headers at PFWG f2f meeting this week
<ChrisWilson> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32 is table summary issue
ChrisWilson: we can take this back to PFWG and get a clearer problem description
ChrisWilson: David Orchard made a proposal, Ian rejected with note that it was by design that HTML5 does not provide a decentralized extensibility mechanism
<Julian> +1 on what Chris is saying
<ChrisWilson> ack
<Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to suggest that I don't see how this proposed mechanism could be implemented without added namespace support to text/html, if we are required to be consistent
<DanC> ah... found it... this is why I think it's Ian's considered opinion, and not a misunderstanding, that he doesn't consider it cost-effective to take on distributed extensibilty: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Apr/0205.html " we actively want to make sure that
<DanC> people can't willy nilly extend the language without coordination with
<DanC> anyone interested in the development of the language"
<DanC> I think distributed extensibility is valuable, but the cost is pretty high... maybe too high.
<ChrisWilson> Julian: could reserve hooks for future
<ChrisWilson> Adjourn?
<ChrisWilson> ADJOURNED.