HTML Weekly Teleconference

16 Apr 2009

See also: IRC log


Julian, Sam, ChrisWilson, anne, Cynthia_Shelly, Mike, Masinter




review tracker

<ChrisWilson> tracker: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda

<pimpbot> Title: Input for Agenda Planning for the HTML Weekly - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

<scribe> scribe: anne

<MikeSmith> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Date: 16 April 2009


AvK: I was wondering about the status publication.

RS: Now html5-diff is done I think we should ask MS.

CW: Ok.

<ChrisWilson> created an action-119 on mike to publish diffs and spec

MS: I think we can do it Tuesday

CW: Great!

<masinter> action-111?

<trackbot> ACTION-111 -- Sam Ruby to work on process issues re: summary -- due 2009-04-09 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/111

<ChrisWilson> reviewing tracker:

<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-111 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

Sam Ruby's actions

SR: for ACTION-111 and ACTION-99 there was little interest on the topics so I plan on closing them if there's no interest within three weeks

JR: I'm interested in the profile attribute. What kind of input are you looking for?

SR: Robert Sayre was supposed to writing text for this and that is approaching three months ago now.

<masinter> action-99?

<trackbot> ACTION-99 -- Sam Ruby to review @profile -- due 2009-04-09 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/99

SR: Losing hope that this works out.

<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-99 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

JR: Can I write spec text?

SR: Not sure if that's sufficient.
... Though if there's hope we can get consensus on that, sure

LM: The action items are very informative

SR: There's extensive discussion on the mailing list

LM: I guess those aren't linked

SR: We're missing sufficient interest

LM: I'm not sure it's clear to everyone that that's the critical path

SR: I'll make it clear

LM: That's great then

CW: I'm fine with that; move on?

SR: Ok

<ChrisWilson> action-103?

<trackbot> ACTION-103 -- Lachlan Hunt to register about: URI scheme -- due 2009-04-09 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/103

<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-103 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

<masinter> there's lots of interest in the features, need to be clear to the people that are interested in the feature that this is the criticla path

<masinter> julian: there has not been a new draft submitted yet

about URL scheme

JR: no new draft has been submitted

CW: I believe LH was travelling and just got back
... I'll ping him

<masinter> action-105?

<trackbot> ACTION-105 -- Sam Ruby to should arrange a meeting between chairs of HTML WG and XHTML2 WG to ensure there is a plan for coordination of vocabularies to avoid incompatibilities. -- due 2009-04-09 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/105

<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-105 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

Julian, they coordinate


SR: I think the ball is in the court of Steven Pemberton and co
... So I'm pushing this back a couple of weeks

<masinter> again, emails discussing this action are not linked from action, is this a tracker problem?

CW: Ok

<ChrisWilson> action-108

<ChrisWilson> action-108?

<trackbot> ACTION-108 -- Larry Masinter to report back on the TAG's work on versioning wrt HTML -- due 2009-04-16 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/108

masinter, are there emails?

<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-108 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

TAG work on versioning

LM: topic scheduled for the next meeting

<ChrisWilson> action-105 +1week

LM: any thoughts on what the TAG could do that would be useful?
... the current draft from the TAG regarding a general framework might not always apply cleanly to HTML

CW: I would like to understand what the TAG thinks, what they'd recommend
... for versioning in HTML

LM: specifically?

CW: Right now I feel like there's a lot of discussion regarding versioning and patterns around versioning
... there's probably a feeling that the patterns don't necessarily apply to HTML

<masinter> This is the topic for the next TAG call today

CW: wanting to have one HTML; those two things are in conflict
... I believe that versioning is a really good thing in any language
... that's not a general consensus here, certainly

LM: what qualities of versioning do you think is missing?
... what is that you don't have that you want?
... need more elaboration of the problem

CW: I want it to be clear that when I answer that question the "you" is Chris Wilson and not the HTML WG
... the general problem with how we define HTML today; if HTML5 becomes a Rec and we realize we did something poorly we will cause rampant compatibility problems if we change implementations
... there are a whole bunch of versioning mechanism that will address that but also cause their own problems
... e.g. create a whole new element or feature

<masinter> I think the general idea of 'versioning' is that you include some indicator of version in the current language that will allow current processors to deal appropriately with future languages and recognize that they don't understand or can process appropriately this future content. The main thing is to categorize or predict the kinds of future content that current implementations should avoid or react to in some appropriate way. What are

<masinter> those categories?

CW: or specify very specific versions e.g. 5.0.3
... somewhere in that spectrum will be our solution

<ChrisWilson> ^ "somewhere in that spectrum will be our solution"


LM: The difficult thing is figuring out what changes we want to allow for.
... E.g. we indicate the current version in the document and current and future implementations will react differently to that somehow

<masinter> giving you a flavor of the general approach, and hoping to use HTML versioning as a good example

CW: Having the TAG consider the whole spectrum of strategies and providing feedback on what would be best would be good

LM: What's versioning anyway? Provide a indicator of the version in the document and future implementations will react to that in a certain way.
... Some extensions might require plug-ins, some might not require browser implementations at all.

CW: I'm happy to listen to other people

<masinter> Using Raman's deconstruction of features as "platform features" vs "language features"

CW: I think the idea of not having a version is the idea that HTML is lasting platform

<masinter> Version indicators in HTML have included DOCTYPE, namespaces, adding new elements, attributes, new APIs, Javascript indicators of versions, MIME types, ....

CW: The idea of writing HTML in 2035 and having it still be usable in implementations of 2020
... I don't think that will work

<masinter> are there more kind of 'version indicators' or things that current processors can recognize?

CW: I meant that the other way around

<masinter> content written at time X should be usable in browsers built at X+Y, and also the converse

CW: I.e. writing content in 2020 still being usable in 2035 without having to implement lots of versions of HTML
... I think that's the goal of some people however I'm sceptical that it's going to work
... However large and smart the group is I don't think they can foresee all implications

<jgraham> Content written in 1995 still works in 2009

LM: [...] that older readers can still read from newer writers in some way
... i.e. current readers deal with future content; that's hard
... the other way, future readers can read current content

AvK: why is that needed? content from 95 still works in 2009?

LM: that's because you have doctype switching

AvK: ok, that's from 99, since then we haven't done anything like that
... I would find it interesting if the TAG looked at this from a historical perspective rather than a framework perspective. E.g. look at CSS and HTML in more detail

CW: in 2005 we were still able to play with doctype switching

<masinter> standards mode vs. quirks mode history is really useful

CW: in 2006 we switched things and got more issues

<masinter> is this written up somewhere? this is really useful

CW: we get the same ability to switch things based on HTML5 nodes

masinter, http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/ has info on DOCTYPE switching

<pimpbot> Title: Activating Browser Modes with Doctype (at hsivonen.iki.fi)

AvK: fyi: IE is quite different from all other browsers here. In other browsers quirks mode is just a fixed amount of differences

<ChrisWilson> agreed: IE has a higher bar for compatibility version-over-version than other browsers.

<masinter> thanks, this is very helpful

CW: do you feel you have enough to go on?

LM: we have an agenda but I wanted to explicitly ask this group
... it's important that the TAG does things that are useful for the W3C WGs; not sure that's always been the history

SR: do we have a new date?

CW: I assume next week

LM: I can report next week

CW: ok

LM: I see this as an ongoing conversation

<ChrisWilson> action-114?

<trackbot> ACTION-114 -- Cynthia Shelly to report progress on ARIA TF -- due 2009-04-16 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/114

<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-114 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)


CS: Meeting two weeks; next one tomorrow; making slow progress. People are making progress on the various action items.
... Waiting for someone from Opera and Apple. Pretty sure about Opera, less confident about Apple.
... Maybe push this report of three weeks so I can report after the meeting?

CW: ok

<ChrisWilson> action-115

<ChrisWilson> action-115?

<trackbot> ACTION-115 -- Michael(tm) Smith to set up WBS for HTML WG participants to @@ reTPAC 2009 -- due 2009-04-16 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/115

<pimpbot> Title: ACTION-115 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

TPAC 2009 WBS form

MS: still not done

AvK: wasn't there a deadline?

<MikeSmith> action-115 due tomorrow

<trackbot> ACTION-115 Set up WBS for HTML WG participants to @@ reTPAC 2009 due date now tomorrow

MS: internal use

CW: I replied weeks ago that we did want to have a meeting
... was enough interest on the telcon back then
... so we met that deadline

<ChrisWilson> any other items?

public-pfwg-comments list / facilitating ARIA comment submission/discussion

<MikeSmith> ACTION: Michael(tm) to talk with Michael Cooper and PFWG about possibility of better facilitating comments on ARIA spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/16-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-120 - Talk with Michael Cooper and PFWG about possibility of better facilitating comments on ARIA spec [on Michael(tm) Smith - due 2009-04-23].

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Michael(tm) to talk with Michael Cooper and PFWG about possibility of better facilitating comments on ARIA spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/16-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009/04/16 16:57:13 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/closing them/closing them if there's no interest within three weeks/
Succeeded: s/is three/is approaching three/
Succeeded: s/no draft/no new draft/
Succeeded: s/somewhere in between would work/somewhere in that spectrum will be our solution/
Found Scribe: anne
Inferring ScribeNick: anne
Default Present: Julian, Sam, ChrisWilson, anne, Cynthia_Shelly, Mike, Masinter
Present: Julian Sam ChrisWilson anne Cynthia_Shelly Mike Masinter
Found Date: 16 Apr 2009
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/04/16-html-wg-minutes.html
People with action items: michael tm

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]