... the disagreement in the discussion is about whether the @headers attribute may refer to | elements or is constrained to |
07:50:32 [refinements from LH/HS... too fast for scribe... can you guys write them down?]
07:50:40 (From what I gathered during a PF meeting having headers for headers would be enough.)
07:50:53 Proposals: http://tinyurl.com/6phdwg
07:50:55 Title: HTML/IssueTableHeaders - ESW Wiki (at tinyurl.com)
07:50:57 (Example why that is needed anyway: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007Aug/att-0003/offset-mess.htm )
07:50:59 Title: layout height attributes on body and html elements (at lists.w3.org)
07:51:16 AlG: some [hallway? PF?] discussion made progress... [something about table header chaining]
07:51:41 MS: I'd like to have Josh before we get too much further in
07:52:01 Hixie: I'm about 86 messages behind on discussion of use cases for this design issue
07:52:38 AlG: see "function and impacts" thread
07:52:41 Al's email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Sep/0362.html
07:52:42 Title: function and impacts (was: scope and headers reform) from Al Gilman on 2008-09-14 (public-html@w3.org from September 2008) (at lists.w3.org)
07:52:55 AlG: see "function and impacts" thread for a re-cap and high-level framing
07:53:28 MC: the discussion around use cases seem more productive than discussion of tags/attributes/conformance
07:53:41 ack me
07:53:41 MichaelC, you wanted to suggest the use cases need to be further understood before getting into conformance rules
07:53:58 q?
07:54:26 Hixie: quite. I always consider use cases before making markup design decisions
07:54:48 q+ to respond use cases have evolved, so nittie-gritties need revisiting
07:55:01 MM: there's a lot of existing practice since 1994... why not use that?
07:55:13 q-
07:55:25 Hixie: we're re-considering design of many[all?] HTML details in the light of another 10 years of experience
07:55:59 AlG: to recap this week's discussion briefly, there's room for improvement... what's in the field is arduous for authors
07:56:12 noah has joined #html-wg
07:56:46 MS: so I hear relevant parties are more likely to be available tomorrow PM
07:57:29 AlG: but I'm not sure I have Josh tomorrow
07:57:50 fantasai has joined #html-wg
08:00:12 agenda?
08:00:32 agenda + table headers attribute [MS]
08:00:48 agenda + SVG in HTML [MS]
08:03:05 Topic: ISSUE-37 html-svg-mathml
08:04:04 MS: SVG WG asked for more discussion before releasing a draft including an earlier proposal
08:04:15 MM: and MathML?
08:05:18 MM: MathML advocates seem satisfied with current draft on MathML integration
08:05:25 marcos has joined #html-wg
08:06:06 SVG WG's counter proposal to the HTML WG is on their wiki: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/SVG_in_text-html
08:06:08 Title: SVG in text-html - SVG (at www.w3.org)
08:06:09 s/MM: MathML/MS: MathML/
08:06:19 najib has joined #html-wg
08:07:05 Topic: ISSUE-41 Decentralized-extensibility
08:07:10 The current draft is http://dev.w3.org/SVG/proposals/svg-html/svg-html-proposal.html AFAIK
08:07:11 Title: SVG and HTML (at dev.w3.org)
08:07:53 MS: the tech plenary discussion yesterday touched on this.
08:08:22 AlG: is the TAG session intended to cover this?
08:08:25 Norbert has joined #html-wg
08:09:09 MS: given the time, the TAG expressed a preference to discuss modularization. Some TAG members particularly interested in modularization aren't here
08:10:39 s/in modularization/in distributed extensibility/
08:11:14 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2008Oct/0031.html (Member-only)
08:11:33 (in response to gsnedders)
08:11:56 adrianba has joined #html-wg
08:14:17 Julian has joined #html-wg
08:15:08 Julian_Reschke: didn't you say you found a new info on ISSUE-54? That there was a similar problem with ASP.NET?
08:15:28 on issue 52: do we have a separate issue for other issues for current HTML generators, such as wrt to new empty tags?
08:15:57 smedero: yes, the "xslt-compat" name is misleading; it's needed for more content producers
08:16:26 no, I haven't seen a separate issue on new empty tags, though I'd want to see a more concrete problem/issue before adding it to the list
08:16:28 Julian_Reschke: have you sent an email on that anywhere? I was going to link that up to the issue... if not, nevermind.
08:16:31 we could change it to "legacy-compat" or some such
08:16:39 jun has joined #html-wg
08:16:46 eek... "legacy-compat" sounds like a huge swap
08:16:51 that's the idea :-)
08:16:52 smedero: can't recall; maybe it was mentioned on IRC somewhere
08:16:57 swamp, I meant
08:17:11 we need something that sounds bad so that people don't think it's the more cool thing
08:17:11 MS: tomorrow at 2pm for SVG/HTML?
08:17:50 ed has joined #html-wg
08:18:14 agenda 5 = SVG in text/html 2pm Fri [Doug]
08:18:48 agenda 5 = SVG in text/html 2pm Fri exec 7 [Doug]
08:19:00 agenda 5 = SVG in text/html 2pm Fri rm exec 7 [Doug]
08:19:20 Hixie, maybe just "compat"
08:19:33 MS: how many ppl? 12-ish
08:19:47 Shunsuke has joined #html-wg
08:19:57 "compat" with what? more specific, please
08:20:27 tools that can't generate
08:20:32 +Joshue
08:21:01 ah. that suggest overlap with issue-4 "HTML Versioning and DOCTYPEs"
08:21:14 agenda/
08:21:16 agenda?
08:22:35 agenda 4 = table headers attribute 4pm-4:45pm Thu [Joshue]
08:24:14 ScribeNick: fantasai
08:24:29 Mike: Next major issue is modularization of the spec
08:24:36 Mike: The TAG has concerns about this
08:24:43 Anne: Shouldn't we discuss other topics?
08:24:51 ...
08:24:56 Mike: About the authentication discussion
08:25:05 Joshue has joined #html-wg
08:25:06 Mike asks about scheduling
08:25:59 anthony has joined #html-wg
08:25:59 Mike: So from 4:45 until ... 5:30?
08:26:06 Mike: For the authentication discussion
08:26:31 agenda 3 = authentication brainstorm 4:45pm Thu [JR/IH]
08:26:43 Mike: So just before we take a break and before we have the TAG members show up
08:27:00 Mike: Does anybody have any thoughts on modularization?
08:27:10 Mike: So the issue is .. we've had this discussion a lot ourselves
08:27:19 Mike: I think there's general consensus to split out certain parts of the spec
08:27:35 Mike: The issue is do we have editors that are willing to work on these separate parts. That's been the iggest blocking factor
08:27:48 Mike: ... discussion with the TAG. That's where we're at as a WG with the issue
08:27:58 Mike: Any other thoughts on that before we talk with TAG?
08:28:08 ?: Do you want to take a shot at explaining that?
08:28:28 ?: Whether there's one editor or three editors, there's still one document or multiple documents
08:28:28 s/?:/MM:/
08:28:53 Hixie explains that the overhead of editing multiple specs is high
08:28:57 ed has joined #html-wg
08:29:01 hsivonen has joined #html-wg
08:29:03 MM: That's not my experience
08:29:06 ??: It is mine
08:29:11 nor mime
08:29:16 s/??:/marcos:/
08:29:18 +marcos
08:29:32 s/mime/mine/
08:29:34 Mike: We have had some discussions about modularization, but the resolution -- or non-resolution -- was that we haven't had people volunteer to take on other parts of the spec
08:29:39 Mike: A specific example of this is ...
08:29:47 Marcos Caceres
08:29:50 Mike: A large part of the spec is the spec for the window object
08:29:55 Mike: It used to be a separate spec
08:30:04 Mike: And we agree it should be a separate spec
08:30:14 Mike: But we didn't have an editor, so we merged it into the HTML5 spec
08:30:22 Mike: There are alots of things in HTML5 that rely on it
08:30:29 Mike: If we had someone to take over ...
08:30:55 ??: ...
08:31:02 Hixie: The window part is a big part of the spec
08:31:06 Mike: what about ..
08:31:12 Hixie: there's too much stuff that relies on it
08:31:46 Hixie: The remote event target would be a better choice. That's a reasonably self-contained thing. i'd estimate 5 hours a week for a few months and then 1 hour a week for a year
08:32:15 ??: ... might get more people to volunteer if you have chunks like 5 hours / week
08:32:20 Hixie: The more trivial sections are done
08:32:35 Hixie: Stuff like canvas etc. that are 40 hours a week for a year, those are where we really need eidtors
08:32:39 Hixie: Particularly rendering view
08:32:44 Hixie: that really is a separate document
08:32:55 Hixie: The section that defines legacy attributes
08:33:07 Mike: If you look at the current spec, that section says "to come"
08:33:15 Hixie: It didn't really make sense to define it until about now.
08:33:29 Mike: What we expect from having a discusison with the TAG, one of the tangible things we can talk about
08:33:58 Mike: ... we do have time set aside tomorrow to go through and look at the spec section by section and decide which parts of it are mature and stable with an eye towards what we're ready to write testcases for.
08:34:11 Mike: But also look at what sections we can split out and look for editors for
08:34:23 Mike: Then we could make proposals about parts of the spec that could be taken on by separate editors
08:34:39 Mike: And if we have a concrete list, an assesment about which parts and what level of effort would be needed to maintain that part of the spec
08:34:49 Mika: Then we could maybe get more people interested in parts of the spec
08:35:04 Hixie: I've been privately approaching people. Also someone from Opera recently asked about working on the timer starts
08:35:13 Hixie: Some sections are marked "i'm looking for an editor"
08:35:25 Hixie: Even then it's taken me a year to find someone for timer
08:35:36 hsivonen_ has joined #html-wg
08:35:45 Hixie: Timer is a good example of how hard it is to estimate time needed
08:35:56 Hixie: between the time when I first started looking for ane editor and now, the work tripled
08:36:11 Hixie: because the webapps group became looking at a next-generation timing ...
08:36:23 Hixie: the problem we had with the window object was that we thought it was very small, 2-line api
08:36:43 Hixie: And now it's a third of the spec, and the editor couldn't cope with what became the scope of the work.
08:37:01 Hsivonen: Another thing is that the editor to do a good job needs to have extended exposure to the bug database of a browser engine
08:37:06 Hixie: or preferably more than one
08:37:16 Hsivonen: And there aren't very many people with that kind of exposure.
08:37:16 (seems like we could separate editing and authoring/design more.)
08:37:40 Mike: So let's put together a list of what parts of the spec we could split out and how much work we think they'll be
08:37:47 Mike: but let's take a break and come back at 11.
08:37:50 BREAK
08:38:56 s/??/Cynthia/
08:43:14 DanC_lap, it's not clear to me that would improve matters; few people are qualified to do the authoring/design, while the mechanical edits are at the same time only a small fraction of the work and also opportunities for introducing errors into the design
08:46:33 ROBOd has joined #html-wg
08:46:46 2
09:00:39 |