See also: IRC log
<gsnedders> takkaria: JPEG, I guess.
<scribe> scribe: DanC
<takkaria> gsnedders: yeah, but I thought JPEG was pretty much done with these days
<pimpbot> Title: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-01-22 [w/addendum] from Sam Ruby on 2009-01-21 (public-html-wg-announce@w3.org from January to March 2009) (at lists.w3.org)
<hsivonen> my regrets for the second half of the call (I have to leave in 30 minutes)
Sam: note update to issue states in http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML
<pimpbot> Title: HTML - ESW Wiki (at esw.w3.org)
(no comments)
(last edited 2009-01-20 23:06:24 by SamRuby)
<rubys> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/markup-spec/
<pimpbot> Title: HTML 5: The Markup Language (at www.w3.org)
Sam: I propose we publish http://www.w3.org/html/wg/markup-spec/
<pimpbot> Title: HTML 5: The Markup Language (at www.w3.org)
hsivonen: I object to publishing
it as a normative spec; it's valuable, but having 2 normative
documents is a problem...
... also, markup-spec basically includes the schema from
validator.nu , and I don't think it should be normative
... if it weren't my schema, I would like that, so on behalf of
potential competitors, I don't think we should do that
<deane> I object to publishing the markup-spec, it hasn't been reviewed by the group. There are other reasons for objecting, but I would rather discuss in email
Sam: I hear your arguments; neither this doc nor the HTML 5 spec enjoys consensus; do you think your argument should prevent publication?
<Julian> depends on the definition of "publish"
hsivonen: publishing as WD suggests an eventual REC, yes?
<deane> The spec has been discussed at length by the group though
[missed some; hope it wasn't essential technical stuff]
<deane> publishing the spec is in the charter, it's not a new concept like the "markup-spec"
<Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to ask naively why does this document exist? what is its relationship to the HTML5 spec as submitted to W3C
<shepazu> mailing-list++
Sam: the HTML 5 spec has a number of things that are controversial; the TAG asked us to look at other approaches, and this is one... the proposal to publish isn't a guarantee of its outcome
<oedipus> GJR: note or REC track?
Sam: regarding 2 normative specs,
I think competition would be healthy
... we can continue to discuss this proposal in the mailing
list
<hsivonen> IIRC, it isn't a proper subset
Julian: my understanding is that the html-markup spec is derived not only from the validator.nu schema but also text from the HTML 5 spec. it has sections pulled from the HTML 5 spec
<deane> Sam, the HTML WG, has never decided if we need a markup-spec, so I don't think it's appropriate to publish
Masinter: are people objecting to discussion of publication?
<deane> It all arose from misinformation (like most things)
<deane> I wasn't joking
<deane> :)
DanC: I understand the proposal to be to publish, not to discuss publishing. This WG takes several days between when questions are put and when the outcome of the decision is announced
Sam: I'd like to have a high bar for objections...
<dsinger> when did it become something that was even a potential deliverable (the intro says it is not an agreed deliverable of the group)? going straight from "not a deliverable" to "publish this" seems a leap, to me...
<deane> hear hear
DanC: well, whether a WG participant objects is up to that participant, right? I understand hsivonen to have objected, formally...
Doug: on behalf of Mozilla?
DanC: yes
HSivonen: as a validator.nu developer
<dsinger> really concerned about having two specs and having to deal with contradictions, explain their relationship, and so on...what is the proposed publication status?
(I understand Sam to have proposed status of WD)
Sam: hsivonen, pls elaborate on your objection?
hsivonen: having a normative specification built from a schema seems circular. [scribe doesn't think he got the gist of that]
(I should have sent mail... I wonder about publishing Mike's doc as a NOTE called "A schema-based description of HTML 5"; but I'm not sure I should muddy the waters now...)
Mike: it's currently in sync what validator.nu, but that's not an essential constraint
<oedipus> +1 to sam on moving on
<deane> I believe that the W3C has been sending mixed messages to people about what the HTML5 spec is, and what's in scope, and this IMO is how the request arose for a "markup-spec". So, IMO there is no need for such a document, it contridicts the main spec.
<zcorpan> circular as in bugs in hsivonen's schema become bugs in the spec if the spec is generated from the schema (which become non-bugs since by definition it is correct behavior)?
<hsivonen> the schema becoming out of sync with validator.nu would invoke my previous objection :-)
Sam: note proposal to publish http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2009JanMar/0012.html
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-95, ISSUE-65: Plan to publish a new WD of HTML-5 from Chris Wilson on 2009-01-22 (public-html-wg-announce@w3.org from January to March 2009) (at lists.w3.org)
<dsinger> ...thinks an informative documen might be useful, but a normative one bad...
Sam: any objections?
<deane> I think Mike's work should be incorporated into the main spec.
<oedipus> pointer to emessage please
Sam: we seem to have consensus around a recent proposal...
hsivonen: proposing 2 valid doctypes: <!DOCTYPES html>, as current, and ...
<zcorpan> (also constraints hsivonen some day prefers to implement in java instead of schema become undefined in the spec if the spec is generated from the schema)
hsivonen: <!DOCTYPES html system "about:sgml-compat">
<hsivonen> <!DOCTYPE html> and <!DOCTYPE html SYSTEM "about:sgml-compat">
<oedipus> +1 to hold off for a week
start of thread is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jan/0063.html
<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-54: doctype-legacy-compat from Sam Ruby on 2009-01-08 (public-html@w3.org from January 2009) (at lists.w3.org)
-1 hold off for a week
<masinter> +1 hold off, "about:" scheme is unregistered
<hober> How about a tag: URI?
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to request registration about:
<Julian> Julian: the alternate doctype should be accepted as valid, otherwise there's no point in adding it.
<hober> tag:w3.org,2009-01:sgml-compat or some-such
DanC: I'm happy to consider this done provided someone volunteers to get about: registered as a URI scheme
Masinter: that could be tricky... might need a registry of values
<gsnedders> hober: That seems too long
<hsivonen> hober, that date is dangerously close to a version number
action-91 due next week
<trackbot> ACTION-91 Propose 'legacy-compat' and report on feedback due date now next week
<hober> IIRC you need at least the year, so I guess s/-01// would work too
(er... trackbot???)
<zcorpan> putting a date in there means you have to google for it (because it's impossible to remember all magic dates in doctypes, namespaces, etc)
Masinter: I'd like us to review
http [?]
... we talked about taking origin out... should we do that
here?
<MikeSmith> title: HTML WG weekly telcon
DanC: I gather Hickson took the 401 stuff out after some experimentation
Julian: yes, that text is gone...
<masinter> thanks, that was my question
Julian: I've been following
Thomas Broyer's IETF ID; I gather a new draft is in
progress
... what would a decision to postpone mean?
Sam: I'd move this back to RAISED if we don't have a concrete proposal
DanC: when I proposed to postpone, I meant "not in HTML5", i.e. RESOLVED WONTFIX
Masinter: seems addressed elsewhere, to me
DanC: how does Thomas Broyer's proposal work? browser builder interest?
Julian: aside from a bug in
opera, it doesn't require any browser builder changes
... it introduces a 'cookie' auth scheme...
<rubys> I'd like to move on in a minute or two...
<rubys> doesn't sound like the status is CLOSED or POSTPONED
(I can't seem to get Julain to tell me who is in the critical path for deployment. who changes from 200 to 4xx? webmasters? any big webmasters lined up to do this?)
Sam: so we can move this back to RAISED until further work is available
action-86 due 1 June 2009
<trackbot> ACTION-86 Review Thomas Broyer's IETF ID to see if we can postpone ISSUE-13 due date now 1 June 2009
<pimpbot> Title: HTML WG weekly telcon -- 22 Jan 2009 (at www.w3.org)
Matt: yes, the WAI coordination group met and decided to put something to draft a position... in a couple weeks
<Julian> DanC, users of web servers would need to change their code to return 401/WWW-Authenticate: Cookie instead of 200.
Sam: lacking a concrete proposal, let's move this issue to RAISED, OK?
ACTION-98 due 5 Feb 2009
<trackbot> ACTION-98 Discuss missing-alt with the WAI CG and report back due date now 5 Feb 2009
<rubys> change Issue-31 state to RAISED and move the date on action-98 out two weeks, any objections?
ACTION-93?
<trackbot> ACTION-93 -- Larry Masinter to make a proposal on doctypes and versioning -- due 2009-01-29 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/93
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-93 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
<MikeSmith> action-76?
<trackbot> ACTION-76 -- Chris Wilson to create poll on issue-32, based on Joshue's page from action-66 -- due 2009-01-31 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/76
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-76 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
Doug: I expect progress today and
next thu on ACTION-94 (
... I've been experimenting with <img> vs <object>,
and <foreignObject>
<oedipus> shepazu, i am intrigued by your philosophy and would like to subscribe to your newsletter
ACTION-79?
<trackbot> ACTION-79 -- Sam Ruby to - send email to spark issue-60 -- due 2009-02-13 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/79
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-79 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
Sam: this is on my stack, but not high
LMM: why postpone?
Sam: if anybody wants it, fine by me...
LMM: OK, I'll take it
<oedipus> shepazu, let me know if i can help by porting info to: http://esw.w3.org/topic/PF/XTech/HTML5/MathMLinHTML5
<pimpbot> Title: PF/XTech/HTML5/MathMLinHTML5 - ESW Wiki (at esw.w3.org)
ACTION-75?
<trackbot> ACTION-75 -- Michael(tm) Smith to raise question to group about Yes, leave @profile out, No, re-add it -- and cite Hixie's summary of the discussion -- due 2009-02-19 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/75
<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-75 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
Mike: We don't seem to have consensus
<inserted> ScribeNick: oedipus
<inserted> ScribeNick: oedipus
DanC: took this action because didn't think more discussion would change anyone's mind; that's why the action is important
MS: don't think survey appropriate
DC: don't do a survey, then
MS: basing decisions on results of surveys is best
DC: putting question to people may be done via email
MS: sending email and trying to evaluate results of email discussion
DC: choice of survey: informational and speak-now-or-forever-hold-your piece
<Joshue> JOC: Well the proposed survey for the summary attribute is its last recourse for a stay of execution. Is it a waste of time?
MS: speculate from examination so far, will have formal objections to removing @profile
SR: will get worse than that - base of zero and what works on web
DC: should withdraw this action because MikeSmith no longer a chair
SR: second that
<inserted> ScribeNick: DanC
<inserted> ScribeNick: DanC
close action-75
<trackbot> ACTION-75 Raise question to group about Yes, leave @profile out, No, re-add it -- and cite Hixie's summary of the discussion closed
<inserted> ScribeNick: oedipus
MS: happy to have action withdrawn;
SR: could move to RAISED or POSTPONED
DC: moving to POSTPONED is giving another week for email review
SR: someone needs to take an action
DC: how do you propose we move forward
SR: issue raised; differing opinions as how to resolve; further discussion likely to be circular
LM: anyone change their mind?
SR: wary of action item with no one assigned to it
MS: volunteer to review issue and come up with recommendation
<inserted> ScribeNick: DanC
LMM: I'm willing to review the issue and make a proposal in 2 weeks
oedipus, are you volunteering to clean up the minutes? if not, please stop
<scribe> ACTION: masinter to review @profile due 2 weeks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-99 - Review @profile due 2 weeks [on Larry Masinter - due 2009-01-29].
DanC: the funding negotiation I've been doing with adobe about authoring materials is done, so this URI stuff might get a little lower priority
LMM: I'm willing to help with the URI stuff
LMM: [missed]
... adam posted a link to the new IETF draft
<masinter> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-abarth-origin-00
<pimpbot> Title: draft-abarth-origin-00 - The HTTP Origin Header (at tools.ietf.org)
(I don't see Adam's msg)
<pimpbot> Title: HTML WG weekly telcon -- 22 Jan 2009 (at www.w3.org)
Sam: let's adjourn. I expect discussion on [chinese menu numbers]
<dsinger> bye
Sam, I think it's recording what you expect discussion on, with subject keywords, not just numbers... repeat, please?
<Julian> issue-59, action-77
<Julian> issue-54, action-91
<Julian> as far as I recall
thanks
Sam: I expect discussion on ISSUE-59 (normative-language-reference), ISSUE-54 doctype-legacy-compat
<pimpbot> Title: HTML WG weekly telcon -- 22 Jan 2009 (at www.w3.org)
smedero, now's the time to pitch in on minutes clean-up, if you're still interested
<smedero> hrm, why didn't rrsagent grab Mike's fix ups on the chair...
<oedipus> smedero, refresh the minutes -- sam is listed as chair
<oedipus> pimpbot is a bit slow
<pimpbot> oedipus: Huh?
<smedero> there we go.
<smedero> thanks
<oedipus> no problem - you going to push the minutes?
<smedero> scanning them now, but yes I will make them public
<smedero> that's fine
<smedero> no problems
<pimpbot> Title: HTML WG weekly telcon -- 22 Jan 2009 (at www.w3.org)
<smedero> yeah I just noticed that lengthy bit at the end.
<gsnedders> oedipus: We've adjourned. It isn't anymore.
<oedipus> gsnedders, RRSAgent is still logging because it is the only way non-staff can edit and tweak the minutes
<pimpbot> Title: HTML WG weekly telcon -- 22 Jan 2009 (at www.w3.org)
<pimpbot> Title: HTML WG weekly telcon -- 22 Jan 2009 (at www.w3.org)
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/julain:/Julian:/ Succeeded: s/PENDING/POSTPONED/ Succeeded: s/<img> vs <object>/<img> vs <object>, and <foreignObject>/ Succeeded: s/should/may/ Succeeded: s/SR/LM/ Succeeded: i/DanC: took this action/ScribeNick: oedipus Succeeded: i/close action-75/ScribeNick: DanC Succeeded: i/DanC: took this action/ScribeNick: oedipus Succeeded: i/close action-75/ScribeNick: DanC Succeeded: s/81/91/ Succeeded: i/MS: happy to have action/ScribeNick: oedipus Succeeded: i/LMM: I'm willing to review/ScribeNick: DanC Succeeded: s/incorpororated/incorporated/ Succeeded: s/proiority/priority/ Succeeded: s/propsal/proposal/ Succeeded: s/on behalf o Mozilla/on behalf of Mozilla/ Found Scribe: DanC Inferring ScribeNick: DanC Found ScribeNick: oedipus Found ScribeNick: oedipus Found ScribeNick: DanC Found ScribeNick: DanC Found ScribeNick: oedipus Found ScribeNick: DanC ScribeNicks: DanC, oedipus Default Present: Masinter, Julian, Sam, DanC, Matt_May, hsivonen, Shepazu, Gregory_Rosmaita, Cynthia_Shelly, adrianba, ChrisWilson, Shawn_Medero, Mike Present: Masinter Julian Sam DanC Matt_May hsivonen Shepazu Gregory_Rosmaita Cynthia_Shelly adrianba ChrisWilson Shawn_Medero Mike Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2009JanMar/0010.html Got date from IRC log name: 22 Jan 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-html-wg-minutes.html People with action items: masinter[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]