16:57:35 RRSAgent has joined #html-wg
16:57:35 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/01/29-html-wg-irc
16:57:37 RRSAgent, make logs public
16:57:39 Zakim, this will be HTML
16:57:39 ok, trackbot, I see HTML_WG()12:00PM already started
16:57:40 Meeting: HTML Weekly Teleconference
16:57:40 Date: 29 January 2009
16:57:59 +Julian
16:58:02 -ChrisWilson
16:58:04 +ChrisWilson
16:58:39 Zakim, call Mike-Mobile
16:58:39 ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made
16:58:41 +Mike
16:59:16 Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:59:16 On the phone I see ChrisWilson, Julian, Mike
17:01:05 regrets+ smedero
17:01:08 +Masinter
17:01:20 oedipus has joined #html-wg
17:01:48 deane has joined #html-wg
17:01:59 GJR offers aural regrets - has a nasty respiratory infection but will be here in IRC
17:02:02 +??P6
17:02:08 +DanC
17:02:13 Zakim, I am ??P6
17:02:13 +Lachy; got it
17:02:14 regrets+ GJR
17:02:23 masinter has joined #html-wg
17:03:36 agenda?
17:03:47 Joshue has joined #html-wg
17:03:53 agenda+ review open issues
17:04:08 agenda+ review pending review items
17:04:20 agenda+ review overdue action items
17:04:37 agenda+ ask for additional agenda items
17:04:39 do you want to discuss the authoring guide today?
17:05:06 action-34?
17:05:06 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 2009-01-22 -- OPEN
17:05:06 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/34
17:05:07 Title: ACTION-34 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
17:05:09 yup. That's action-34, showing up as overdue.
17:05:41 Need a scribe?
17:05:45 Any volunteers
17:05:54 zakim, choose a victim
17:05:54 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Masinter
17:05:55 Bueller... Bueller... Bueller...
17:05:56 scribenick Lachy
17:06:11 agenda?
17:06:23 zakim, take up item 4
17:06:23 agendum 4. "ask for additional agenda items" taken up [from ChrisWilson]
17:06:23 scribenick: Lachy
17:06:35 Anyone have anything to discuss today that's not in the tracker?
17:06:45 q+
17:06:59 ack oedipus
17:07:03 yeeees?
17:07:08 how to log my D for DIALOGUE proposal -- issue, bug, what?
17:07:18 GJR: If Sam gets here, I wouldn't mind a discussion of argumentation style on the mailing list
17:08:01 s/GJR/Larry
17:08:13 s/GJR:/Larry:/
17:08:21 ARIA already has aria-dialog deployed and dialog is a programmatic term, dialogue is a homonym, D is cleanest solution
17:08:46 oedipus: Add an issue, and since you've made the proposal, I would add an item to collect feedback with an end date - at that point, we should review and hand over to editor if we have consensus
17:08:55 s/item/action item/
17:08:57 + +1.519.378.aaaa
17:09:12 Zakim, aaaa is MurrayM
17:09:12 +MurrayM; got it
17:09:55 zakim, close item 4
17:09:55 agendum 4, ask for additional agenda items, closed
17:09:56 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
17:09:57 1. review open issues [from ChrisWilson]
17:09:59 zakim, take up item 1
17:09:59 agendum 1. "review open issues" taken up [from ChrisWilson]
17:10:04 ChrisWilson: i am not on the issue logging team anymore - how to add?
17:10:40 Topic: ISSUE-65: HTML 5 spec update after 10 June 2008
17:10:50 rubys has joined #html-wg
17:10:55 CW: DanC, please get Gregory added to the issue logging system
17:11:09 Topic: ISSUE-65: HTML 5 spec update after 10 June 2008
17:11:12 CW: I had an action to send mail to WG about issuing a new WD
17:11:21 I raised an objection
17:11:22 CW: Everyone in agreement about new WD
17:11:26 ChrisWilson: thank you
17:11:33 dbaron has joined #html-wg
17:11:48 Larry: I raised an objection on the mailing list
17:12:03 +Shepazu
17:12:10 Larry: I want the spec to be held to the same level of concensus as Mike's proposal
17:12:18 +[Mozilla]
17:12:30 Zakim, [Mozilla] has David_Baron
17:12:30 +David_Baron; got it
17:12:49 LH: The difference is that HTML5 has already been through FPWD status, and had a WG vote
17:13:06 Larry: I think a new version needs more concesus than the previous
17:13:53 new features shouldn't be added until they are agreed
17:13:54 CW: I'd like to think new WD's would increase the level of concensus
17:14:33 CW: 2 options: 1. publish HTML5 now as another WD, 2. Send another poll to the group
17:14:48 LH: Opposed to doing another poll
17:15:02 Larry: you could also publish over my objection.
17:15:24 I prefer option 1
17:16:03 I support option one
17:16:14 I believe we have sufficient concensus to publish then.
17:16:14 DanC: yeah, I can
17:16:31 q+ to ask what would the poll ask - release or no?
17:16:38 sufficient agreement, perhaps?
17:16:44 IETF uses 'rough consensus'
17:16:44 there's not much that needs to be done as far as the HTML5 draft.. it's already ready to publish
17:16:44 DanC: I think you're making a decision over someone's objection. I don't think we have concensus
17:16:50 s/concensus/support
17:17:18 The process document is also pretty clear that concensus != unanimity.
17:17:24 yup
17:17:27 we do not have unanimous consensus, Larry did object.
17:17:31 q?
17:17:32 "sufficient support" works.
17:17:47 s/sufficient concensus /support support/
17:17:55 http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#Consensus
17:17:57 Title: 3 General Policies for W3C Groups (at www.w3.org)
17:18:01 ack oed
17:18:01 oedipus, you wanted to ask what would the poll ask - release or no?
17:18:07 ah
17:18:14 yes, I think that would effectively be the question
17:18:19 Though I guess it does define consensus as without objection.
17:18:37 yes, concensus != unanimity, but it implies that there are also no objections
17:19:04 okay. I declare a rathole, will try not to use term concensus, move on. :)
17:19:31 +1 publish diff doc as well
17:19:37 concensus == everyone can live with it (I think)
17:19:40 [fyi] another poll is a waste of time; we shouldn't be afraid to publish, because the introductary verbiage says: this is a work in progress, and other disclaimers -- let the public see what has been done and let them (and the WG) react to the new draft
17:19:45 +1 also to diff doc
17:19:50 MS: We should also publish Anne's Differences doc
17:19:53 plus 1 to DIFF doc
17:19:54 oedipus, I think the feeling is that a poll isn't really cost effective, as you said.
17:20:03 i have no objection to publishing the diff doc
17:20:05 consensus = sufficient support and no objections. consensus is valued but not required for W3C WG decisions.
17:20:09 s/concensus/consensus/g
17:20:49 CW: Do we need to get additional support, or consider it publishable?
17:21:03 DanC: I think we have enough support to publish
17:21:14 JOC: I also don't mind publishing the differences doc
17:21:28 i'm strongly in favor of publishing the diff document, even if the document itself weren't published
17:21:46 RESOLVED: to publish the HTML 5 spec and the diff document
17:21:59 issue-59?
17:21:59 ISSUE-59 -- Should the HTML WG produce a separate document that is a normative language reference and if so what are the requirements -- OPEN
17:21:59 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/59
17:22:00 Title: ISSUE-59 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
17:22:00 ACTION: MikeSmith to publish the spec and diff
17:22:00 Created ACTION-101 - Publish the spec and diff [on Michael(tm) Smith - due 2009-02-05].
17:22:03 ACTION: Mike publish update of html5 spec and "differences from html 4"
17:22:03 Created ACTION-102 - Publish update of html5 spec and \"differences from html 4\" [on Michael(tm) Smith - due 2009-02-05].
17:22:15 close action-102
17:22:15 ACTION-102 Publish update of html5 spec and \"differences from html 4\" closed
17:22:42 action-77
17:22:42 Topic: ISSUE-59 (normative-language-reference)
17:22:55 action-77?
17:22:55 ACTION-77 -- Michael(tm) Smith to lead HTML WG to response to TAG discussion and report back to TAG -- due 2009-01-23 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:22:55 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/77
17:22:56 Title: ACTION-77 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
17:23:08 (action-77 is a sort of placeholder here)
17:23:51 CW: Let's defer this discussion about publishing HTML5: The Markup Langauge till next week
17:24:25 [fwiw] plus 1 to publishing HTML5: The Markup Language in tandem with the PWD and the diff doc
17:25:28 CW: Does anyone think we can do anything productive today on this topic?
17:25:33 not me
17:25:37 no
17:25:42 probably not
17:26:05 [fwiw] this is one case where i don't mind executive decision by fiat
17:26:35 JOC" +1 also to publishing the HTML 5 The Markup Language with the PWD and diff doc also
17:26:44 issue-54 and action-91?
17:26:51 issue-54?
17:26:51 ISSUE-54 -- tools that can't generate -- OPEN
17:26:51 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/54
17:26:52 Title: ISSUE-54 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
17:26:54 action-91?
17:26:54 ACTION-91 -- Sam Ruby to propose 'legacy-compat' and report on feedback -- due 2009-01-29 -- OPEN
17:26:54 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/91
17:26:55 Title: ACTION-91 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
17:26:56 Topic: ISSUE-54 (doctype-legacy-compat): tools that can't generate
17:27:13 I think it it time to turn the feedback received over to the editor
17:27:27 we seem to have a number of options that nobody can find an issue with
17:27:37 all use SYSTEM, most use about:
17:27:44 i'm not sure the precondtions have been met
17:27:50 beyond that, I'd like to leave it to the editors discretion
17:27:56 the "about:" URI scheme registration isn't complete
17:27:56 masinter, what preconditions?
17:28:06 it's in progress, but hasn't been finished
17:28:13 we can certainly review whatever is selected before publishing
17:28:24 define finished in this context?
17:28:48 Larry: The registration hasn't been submitted to IANA yet
17:28:54 or has it?
17:28:54 ... for about: URI
17:28:55 q+
17:28:58 ack J
17:29:31 I am ok with it going into a draft with the understanding that an IANA registration will be pursued
17:29:41 (I suggest Larry or Julian take an action to track registration)
17:29:44 Julian: I'm not sure the completion state of registration is a show stopper
17:29:51 i agree it isn't
17:31:03 Larry: The IETF has a process that needs to be followed, and should be registered first. But I'm fine with putting it in tentatively
17:31:20 q+
17:31:21 +1 move ISSUE-54 (doctype-legacy-compat) to PENDINGREVIEW (i.e. hand it to the editor) contingent on registration of about:
17:31:22 CW: I think either Larry or Julian should take an action to track the progress of registration
17:31:23 ack j
17:31:32 Julian: I think Lachlan is an author
17:31:41 There is other stuff that is spending IANA registration, FWIW.
17:31:57 LH: I am
17:32:29 should take less than a month, because it is 'expert review'
17:32:50 ACTION: Lachlan to track registration of about: URI scheme
17:32:50 Sorry, couldn't find user - Lachlan
17:32:58 xover has joined #html-wg
17:33:01 ACTION: Lachy to track registration of about: URI scheme
17:33:01 Sorry, couldn't find user - Lachy
17:33:04 Sam, it sounds like you can go ahead and pass off to editor on action-91.
17:33:07 wtf?
17:33:12 laplink has joined #html-wg
17:33:19 ACTION: Lachlan to track registration of about: URI scheme
17:33:19 Sorry, couldn't find user - Lachlan
17:33:19 will do
17:33:40 trackbot, status?
17:34:51 hyatt has joined #html-wg
17:35:05 Lachy: Dan's action-72 isn't due until tomorrow, and he's not quite done, so we'll discuss next week.
17:35:25 DanC: I think Hickson's proposal of 20 Dec satisfies all concerned re table headers; I just want to dot a few i's and cross a few t's, then I'll send the "are we all agreed?" msg
17:35:38 It looks like no further actions on open issues are due.
17:35:50 action-78?
17:35:50 ACTION-78 -- Larry Masinter to suggestion text for 1.5.4 Relationship to Flash, Silverlight, XUL and similar proprietary languages -- due 2009-01-14 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:35:50 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/78
17:35:51 Title: ACTION-78 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
17:36:04 Topic: 1.5.4 Relationship to Flash, Silverlight, XUL and similar proprietary languages
17:37:09 LH: There was a proposal sent to mailing list to revise section 1.5.4. Hixie said he'd get to it about Q3 this year
17:37:16 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jan/0238.html
17:37:18 Title: Re: ACTION-78: Suggestion text for 1.5.4 from Ian Hickson on 2009-01-20 (public-html@w3.org from January 2009) (at lists.w3.org)
17:37:49 (I'm looking at 0238 and I don't see proposed text)
17:38:01 there wasn't proposed text. But a clear explanation of the problem
17:38:10 Zakim, who is noisy?
17:38:12 Hixie should be capable of writing text that matches the feedback
17:38:17 oh. then I can't evaluate whether I like it. never mind.
17:38:21 dbaron, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Lachy (19%), MurrayM (5%), ChrisWilson (84%)
17:38:45 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jan/0218.html
17:38:46 Title: Re: ACTION-78: Suggestion text for 1.5.4 from Lachlan Hunt on 2009-01-19 (public-html@w3.org from January 2009) (at lists.w3.org)
17:38:58 that's the mail from me that identified the problem
17:39:15 DanC: I'm willing to work with Lachlan to come up with something mutually agreeable
17:39:47 LH: Why can't Hixie do it when he get's to it?
17:39:54 DanC: I want it done before Q3
17:40:00 CW: Leave Hixie's time for more valuable things
17:40:18 I'm OK with Q3
17:40:19 action-78?
17:40:19 ACTION-78 -- Larry Masinter to work with Lachlan on text for 1.5.4 Relationship to Flash, Silverlight, XUL and similar proprietary languages -- due 2009-02-05 -- OPEN
17:40:19 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/78
17:40:20 Title: ACTION-78 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
17:40:53 action-78?
17:40:54 ACTION-78 -- Larry Masinter to work with Lachlan on text and heading for 1.5.4 Relationship to Flash, Silverlight, XUL and similar proprietary languages -- due 2009-02-05 -- OPEN
17:40:54 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/78
17:40:55 Title: ACTION-78 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
17:41:06 zakim, close item 1
17:41:06 agendum 1, review open issues, closed
17:41:07 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
17:41:08 2. review pending review items [from ChrisWilson]
17:41:11 zakim, take up item 2
17:41:11 agendum 2. "review pending review items" taken up [from ChrisWilson]
17:41:30 zakim, close item 2
17:41:30 agendum 2, review pending review items, closed
17:41:31 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
17:41:32 3. review overdue action items [from ChrisWilson]
17:41:34 zakim, take up item 3
17:41:34 agendum 3. "review overdue action items" taken up [from ChrisWilson]
17:41:41 action-34?
17:41:41