IRC log of html-wg on 2009-08-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:56:34 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #html-wg
15:56:34 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:57:35 [Stevef]
Stevef has joined #html-wg
15:59:07 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #html-wg
15:59:26 [jgraham]
16:00:22 [rubys1]
zakim, start call
16:00:22 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'start call', rubys1
16:00:47 [rubys1]
trackbot, start call
16:00:47 [trackbot]
Sorry, rubys1, I don't understand 'trackbot, start call'. Please refer to for help
16:00:48 [pimpbot]
Title: IRC Trackbot (at
16:00:51 [laplink]
laplink has joined #html-wg
16:01:15 [rubys1]
trackbot, start telcon
16:01:17 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:01:19 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be HTML
16:01:19 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot, I see HTML_WG()12:00PM already started
16:01:20 [trackbot]
Meeting: HTML Weekly Teleconference
16:01:20 [trackbot]
Date: 06 August 2009
16:01:21 [Zakim]
16:01:22 [Zakim]
16:01:26 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #html-wg
16:01:32 [Zakim]
16:01:44 [dsinger]
zakim [apple] has dsinger
16:01:52 [dsinger]
zakim, [apple] has dsinger
16:01:52 [Zakim]
+dsinger; got it
16:01:53 [Zakim]
16:01:53 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.595.aabb
16:02:07 [rubys1]
zakim, who is on the call
16:02:07 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on the call', rubys1
16:02:14 [Zakim]
+ +47.40.28.aacc
16:02:19 [mjs]
I'm on - I think
16:02:21 [masinter]
masinter has joined #html-wg
16:02:31 [Zakim]
16:02:52 [Stevef]
zakim, IPcaller is Stevef
16:02:52 [Zakim]
+Stevef; got it
16:02:56 [Lachy]
I guess I must be [IPcaller]
16:03:01 [Lachy]
oh, maybe not
16:03:14 [dsinger]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:03:14 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Sam, ??P2, +1.703.234.aaaa, Julian, Radhika_Roy, [Apple], Masinter, +1.415.595.aabb, +47.40.28.aacc, Stevef
16:03:17 [Zakim]
[Apple] has dsinger
16:03:17 [Zakim]
- +47.40.28.aacc
16:03:30 [Zakim]
16:03:43 [mjs]
it's awful quiet on the call
16:03:50 [dsinger]
16:03:54 [kliehm]
I'm on the phone, too, should be +49 (or VOIP)
16:04:00 [Lachy]
no, I dropped off. calling back
16:04:22 [Zakim]
+ +47.40.28.aadd
16:04:25 [Lachy]
Zakim, I am aadd
16:04:25 [Zakim]
+Lachy; got it
16:04:44 [Zakim]
+ +1.519.378.aaee
16:04:53 [Zakim]
16:05:11 [Zakim]
16:05:21 [Zakim]
16:05:25 [rubys]
zakim, aabb is mjs
16:05:25 [Zakim]
+mjs; got it
16:05:32 [dsinger]
zakim, aabb is mjs
16:05:32 [Zakim]
sorry, dsinger, I do not recognize a party named 'aabb'
16:05:36 [kliehm]
zakim, ??P34 is kliehm
16:05:36 [Zakim]
+kliehm; got it
16:05:50 [dsinger]
zakim, +1.415.595.aabb is mjs
16:05:50 [Zakim]
sorry, dsinger, I do not recognize a party named '+1.415.595.aabb'
16:05:59 [dsinger]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:05:59 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Sam, +1.703.234.aaaa, Julian, Radhika_Roy, [Apple], Masinter, mjs, Stevef, Matt_May, Lachy, +1.519.378.aaee, Laura, kliehm
16:06:01 [Zakim]
[Apple] has dsinger
16:06:04 [rubys]
zakim, pick a scribe
16:06:04 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Laura
16:06:19 [rubys]
zakim, pick a scribe
16:06:19 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Juian
16:06:22 [kliehm]
zakim aabb is mjs
16:06:27 [Zakim]
16:06:34 [kliehm]
zakim, aabb is mjs
16:06:34 [Zakim]
sorry, kliehm, I do not recognize a party named 'aabb'
16:06:40 [Julian]
scribe: Julian
16:07:00 [Julian]
chair: rubys
16:07:05 [LHSilli]
LHSilli has joined #html-wg
16:07:22 [rubys]
16:07:32 [rubys]
16:07:32 [trackbot]
ISSUE-35 -- Need to define processing requirements for aria states and properties when used in html -- OPEN
16:07:32 [trackbot]
16:07:33 [pimpbot]
Title: ISSUE-35 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at
16:07:33 [Julian]
16:07:57 [Julian]
cynthia: making progress, FPWD this month planned
16:08:10 [Julian]
cynthia: working on HTML mappings
16:08:33 [rubys]
16:08:34 [pimpbot]
Title: Re: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-08-05 from Ian Hickson on 2009-08-05 ( from August 2009) (at
16:08:36 [Julian]
cynthia: report again in 3..4 weeks
16:08:55 [Julian]
rubys: hixie asked for specific feedback
16:09:11 [Julian]
cynthia: differences in WG process
16:09:31 [Julian]
cynthia: do not respond before all comments are processed
16:09:38 [Julian]
cynthia: ETA 3..4 months
16:09:39 [mjs]
16:09:42 [mjs]
16:10:02 [Stevef]
16:10:23 [Julian]
cynthia: explains the HTML vs ARIA mapping issue
16:11:14 [DanC]
DanC has joined #html-wg
16:11:27 [Julian]
16:11:52 [Zakim]
16:12:47 [rubys]
ack stevef
16:12:58 [Julian]
SteveF: (misssed this)
16:13:10 [J_Voracek]
J_Voracek has joined #html-wg
16:13:27 [DanC]
q+ murray
16:13:40 [DanC]
ack next
16:14:06 [Julian]
mjs: explains hixie's comments
16:14:12 [DanC]
I'm interested to see ARIA integrated by reference too, though it's not clear to me how that would work
16:14:35 [annevk]
Zakim, passcode?
16:14:35 [Zakim]
the conference code is 4865 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), annevk
16:15:06 [Julian]
mjs: ...inconsistent state between HTML and ARIA semantics... make non-conforming?
16:15:10 [jgraham]
To integrate it by reference it would need to define all the areas of overlap between aria semantics and native semantics
16:15:33 [Julian]
mjs: ARIA currently says host language can't override
16:16:54 [masinter]
16:16:59 [Julian]
mjs: q
16:17:00 [Julian]
16:17:07 [mjs]
to type my remarks into the record:
16:17:13 [rubys]
ack murray
16:17:18 [Julian]
SteveF: promises feedback next week
16:17:21 [Zakim]
16:17:43 [mjs]
1) What Ian specifically wants is to make inconsistent states between native markup and ARIA roles/properties noncomforming - right now ARIA doesn't let a host language do that
16:17:46 [Julian]
Murray: asks for mechanism to describe conformance
16:18:18 [Stevef]
16:19:01 [Zakim]
16:19:11 [rubys]
ack masinter
16:19:13 [J_Voracek]
J_Voracek has joined #html-wg
16:19:16 [mjs]
2) (from my earlier remarks) we should ask PFWG to expedite processing of this specific comment
16:19:33 [Julian]
masinter: inclusion vs reference of ARIA
16:19:44 [Zakim]
16:19:52 [Zakim]
16:19:54 [Julian]
masinter: motivation for the current plan
16:20:00 [annevk]
Zakim, ??P12 is me
16:20:00 [Zakim]
+annevk; got it
16:20:37 [rubys]
ack stevef
16:20:55 [Stevef]
16:20:56 [pimpbot]
Title: Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 (at
16:20:57 [kliehm]
Murray, the ARIA DTD extends the HTML DTD, but doesn't prohibit any inconsistencies.
16:21:09 [masinter]
So I heard Sam say that no one advocated inclusion of ARIA rather than reference to the ARIA spec
16:21:54 [rubys]
s/no one advocated/he had not heard of anybody advocating/
16:22:06 [jgraham]
I assume the issue is not includion vs reference so much as how much HTML needs to say about the mapping between native semantics and aria semantics
16:22:23 [jgraham]
i.e. I assume no one is proposing duplicating aria in HTML
16:22:38 [annevk]
Why does ARIA override?
16:23:03 [masinter]
i'm doing a text search on ARIA in
16:23:04 [pimpbot]
Title: HTML 5 (at
16:23:18 [Julian]
stevef: not sure whether there's a problem with the current draft
16:23:20 [DanC]
I think mjs said something about a problem with WAI ARIA not allowing host languages to set conformance requirements; steve can't find any such problem in a current draft
16:23:44 [mjs]
can someone provide a link to the current editor's draft?
16:23:55 [DanC]
16:23:56 [pimpbot]
Title: Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 (at
16:24:00 [rubys]
stevef would like ian to reconfirm that he still has an issue with the current draft
16:24:51 [annevk]
also, things like " assistive technology SHOULD assign preference to the WAI-ARIA feature" seem incorrect, given that the browser tells something to the assistive technology, not the other way around
16:24:53 [DanC]
"The appearance of the name literal of any concrete WAI-ARIA role (see section 7.3.2) as one of these substrings MUST NOT in and of itself make the attribute value illegal in the host-language syntax" -- 6.1.1. Role Attribute
16:24:54 [jgraham]
(as a concrete example I believe the issue is things like <input type=radio role=checkbox>
16:24:57 [jgraham]
16:26:16 [annevk]
Anne: wouldn't it be better to wait until ARIA is out of LC?
16:26:27 [DanC]
mjs, you seem to be reading a comment from hixie; pointer, please?
16:26:30 [annevk]
Maciej: that would delay it too much
16:26:57 [kliehm]
I can imagine designers who want a radio button to *look* like a checkbox, so that's no contradiction then.
16:27:08 [Julian]
rubys, pushing back one week
16:27:09 [mjs]
DanC, I followed the link from what rubys linked earlier:
16:27:10 [pimpbot]
Title: Comment details - PFWG Public Comments (at
16:27:30 [rubys]
16:27:30 [trackbot]
ISSUE-32 -- how to provide a summary of a table, e.g. for unsighted navigation? -- OPEN
16:27:30 [trackbot]
16:27:31 [pimpbot]
Title: ISSUE-32 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at
16:27:32 [Julian]
16:27:37 [DanC]
(I concur with a point dbaron made: having groups talk to each other with low latency isn't as good as having individuals get together and talk. There's a time for formal group-to-group stuff, but it should be the exception, not the rule)
16:28:35 [Julian]
murray: great compromise
16:29:09 [Julian]
murray: thanks the people involved
16:29:11 [Julian]
16:29:20 [annevk]
s/the/to the/
16:29:26 [rubys]
ack julian
16:29:46 [annevk]
Julian: from my point of view the spec is far away from expressing consensus
16:29:46 [adrianba]
adrianba has joined #html-wg
16:29:52 [annevk]
Julian: I would vote for John's draft
16:29:54 [mjs]
16:30:13 [masinter]
16:30:21 [rubys]
ack mjs
16:30:26 [gsnedders_]
gsnedders_ has joined #html-wg
16:30:29 [Julian]
julian: not satisfied with the compromise
16:30:36 [masinter]
I agree with Julian, FWIW
16:30:37 [DanC]
(I continue to see shelly object, but I gather she's already made her argument and doesn't feel a need to repeat it. Does anybody have a pointer to something that captures her concerns?)
16:30:51 [rubys]
16:31:15 [kliehm]
zakim, mute me
16:31:15 [Zakim]
kliehm should now be muted
16:31:30 [Julian]
mjs: asks people to look at the text,. avoiding a vote
16:31:50 [Laura]
Laura has joined #html-wg
16:31:50 [masinter]
I think it is astounding how much debate it took to get this far, and it makes me querstion whether the group is ready to reach last call on schedule
16:32:05 [Laura]
John's recap saying table summary is an open question:
16:32:11 [Laura]
16:32:12 [pimpbot]
Title: Movement on summary from John Foliot on 2009-08-06 ( from August 2009) (at
16:32:14 [Julian]
mjs: explains the "should"
16:32:18 [Laura]
Steve saying the @summary text is adequate for now but doesn't see it making last call.
16:32:19 [Julian]
16:32:25 [Laura]
16:32:26 [pimpbot]
Title: Re: summary attribute compromise proposal from Steven Faulkner on 2009-08-06 ( from August 2009) (at
16:32:38 [Laura]
Me asking to have summary in the draft marked as open. Sam previously said it is the proper way to handle it.
16:32:44 [Laura]
16:32:45 [pimpbot]
Title: Re: summary attribute compromise proposal from Laura Carlson on 2009-08-06 ( from August 2009) (at
16:32:52 [Laura]
Sam saying @summary is "well on its way" to being closed.
16:32:53 [jgraham]
FWIW I don't see any substantial change from the current text taking us closer to a maxima of acceptability
16:33:00 [Laura]
16:33:01 [pimpbot]
Title: Sam Ruby: Disappearing Silverware (at
16:33:07 [Laura]
Shelley calling it "painting people into a corner".
16:33:13 [Laura]
16:33:14 [pimpbot]
Title: Re: summary attribute compromise proposal from Shelley Powers on 2009-08-06 ( from August 2009) (at
16:33:20 [Laura]
Leif suggesting that we should have Sam's support for *keeping* it marked as an open.
16:33:20 [masinter]
example of difficulties of coming to consensus on authoring conformance requirements
16:33:21 [Julian]
mjs: says it's not obsolete (?)
16:33:25 [Laura]
16:33:26 [pimpbot]
Title: Re: summary attribute compromise proposal from Leif Halvard Silli on 2009-08-06 ( from August 2009) (at
16:33:32 [rubys]
ack masinter
16:33:41 [Julian]
masinter: issue not addressed
16:34:35 [Julian]
masinter: general underlying problem with conformance requirements
16:34:47 [pimpbot]
Title: Re: summary attribute compromise proposal from Shelley Powers on 2009-08-04 ( from August 2009) (at
16:34:51 [dsinger]
16:35:04 [mjs]
16:35:10 [Julian]
masinter: discouraged by compromise and time spent on it
16:35:40 [Julian]
Matt_May: some of the uncontroversial
16:36:07 [Julian]
Matt_May: there are also design considerations
16:36:36 [Julian]
Matt_May: "obsolete, but conforming" will cause more discussions
16:36:40 [Zakim]
16:37:06 [Julian]
Matt_May: keep the advice, but no warning needed
16:37:26 [Zakim]
16:37:46 [Julian]
16:37:49 [DanC]
q+ murray
16:37:57 [rubys]
ack matt_may
16:37:57 [DanC]
ack next
16:38:07 [Julian]
I agree with Matt was saying
16:38:51 [cshelly]
cshelly has joined #html-wg
16:39:03 [cshelly]
16:39:23 [cshelly]
16:39:29 [annevk]
16:39:34 [Julian]
dsinger: explains that there's a meta-problem behind @summary
16:39:35 [annevk]
(to dsinger)
16:39:42 [rubys]
ack mjs
16:40:17 [Julian]
mjs: asks masinter to clarify his concern
16:40:27 [Julian]
masinter: see Julian's mail
16:40:37 [rubys]
ack murray
16:40:39 [DanC]
(+1 to what, cshelly and annevk?)
16:41:02 [annevk]
(I mentioned that in my next line, DanC)
16:41:03 [cshelly]
+1 to dsinger
16:41:14 [rubys]
I belivee that they were +1'ing the notion of the chairs getting together and working out the progress (dsinger's comment)
16:41:18 [DanC]
16:41:22 [rubys]
16:41:34 [rubys]
16:42:18 [Julian]
murray: repeats that helping access. for tables is important
16:42:51 [Julian]
murray: don't prematurely obsolete
16:43:09 [Julian]
murray: lots of work to do left
16:43:22 [rubys]
ack Cynthia_Shelly
16:43:26 [rubys]
ack cshelly
16:43:40 [mjs]
I'd like to note again for the record that the text does *not* make the summary attribute obsolete
16:43:49 [Julian]
cshelly: new text ok for next draft
16:44:09 [Lachy]
q+ on the issue of publishing Working Drafts in the future
16:44:13 [Julian]
mjs, it appears in "12.1 Conforming but obsolete features". Why?
16:44:43 [mjs]
Julian, that's the section that defines all the warnings in the spec
16:44:47 [Zakim]
16:44:54 [Julian_]
Julian_ has joined #html-wg
16:45:12 [Julian_]
cshelly: PFWG happy with process
16:45:13 [Julian_]
16:45:26 [Julian_]
cshelly: @summary not the most important issue
16:45:41 [mjs]
Julian, all the other warnings are for conforming but obsolete features, but the warning for summary is clearly stated in a distinct way, referring to its definition in the <table> section
16:46:15 [Julian_]
mjs, not helpful, IHMO. The effect is the same.
16:46:16 [Zakim]
16:46:44 [Stevef]
zakim, IPcaller is Stevef
16:46:44 [Zakim]
+Stevef; got it
16:46:51 [jgraham]
AFAICT the spec is very clear that @summary just triggers a warning section 12.1
16:47:03 [Zakim]
16:47:08 [Julian_]
cshelly: proposes a TF
16:47:08 [jgraham]
s/warning/warning in/
16:47:09 [rubys]
zakim, who is on the queue
16:47:09 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on the queue', rubys
16:47:16 [rubys]
zakim, who is on the queue?
16:47:16 [Zakim]
I see Lachy, Julian_ on the speaker queue
16:47:23 [kliehm]
Which brings me to the point wether there will a F2F meeting at TPAC 2009?
16:47:49 [rubys]
ack next
16:47:50 [Zakim]
Lachy, you wanted to comment on the issue of publishing Working Drafts in the future
16:48:21 [Julian]
Lachy: do not let procedural and technical issues mix
16:48:27 [mjs]
16:48:30 [cshelly]
16:48:53 [Julian]
Lachy: let (PF)WDs be published without any discussion
16:48:58 [DanC]
q+ murray
16:49:03 [rubys]
ack next
16:49:05 [Stevef]
+1 to lachlans suggestion
16:49:08 [Lachy]
16:49:15 [rubys]
+1 to lachlan's suggestion
16:49:23 [dsinger]
I don't think I can agree that any document can be published from a WG without any discussion or agreement. That's an individual draft.
16:49:48 [cshelly]
+1 to dsinger
16:50:03 [Lachy]
dsinger, since WD explcitly don't require concensus of the group, what harm does it do?
16:50:17 [jgraham]
Maybe any document that has been FPWD may be published again without discussion
16:50:18 [DanC]
-1 to lachlan's suggestion. it's healthy that publication decisions re-awaken sleeping dissent and such.
16:50:18 [rubys]
ack next
16:50:32 [Julian]
Julian: not "obsolete but conforming" + "produce warning" -> does not compte
16:50:50 [Julian]
mjs: reminder about petent review clock for new PFWD
16:50:55 [Lachy]
ok, that's fair enough about FPWD due to the patent review issues
16:50:57 [rubys]
ack cshelly
16:50:59 [masinter]
16:51:11 [dsinger]
First Public Working Draft: "Entrance criteria: The Chair must record the group's decision to request advancement. Since this is the first time that a document with this short name appears in the Technical Reports index, Director approval is required for the transition."
16:51:35 [Julian]
cshelly: points out that what was going on is good; we need to get things out of the way before LC
16:51:59 [rubys]
ack next
16:52:06 [mjs]
16:52:10 [Julian]
murray: found the discussion helpful, not harmful
16:52:25 [DanC]
(FYI, last call comments shouldn't come from WG members; last call is a decision that the WG is done handling its own issues/comments.)
16:52:49 [rubys]
if people who have already had a turn simply wish to repeat comments, I ask that they remove themselves from the queue
16:53:06 [Julian]
murray: points out that there could be multiple levels of warnings
16:53:12 [masinter]
16:53:21 [rubys]
ack mjs
16:54:21 [cshelly]
danc, that's exactly why we need to agree on things before LC. If we don't, then there will be lots of comments from WG members.
16:54:24 [Julian]
mjs: connecting technical discussions to procedural ones is dangerous
16:54:58 [masinter]
q+ on process vs. technical issues
16:55:07 [Julian]
rubys: allowing other peple to produce WDs helps
16:55:19 [dsinger]
well, I think if Ian feels that there is a strong consensus which he doesn't agree with, he'll concede
16:55:21 [Julian]
16:55:27 [cshelly]
+1 rubys
16:55:35 [DanC]
LC comments from WG members are out of order/non-sensical. LC is a decision that the WG is done. For a WG member to then send a comment doesn't make sense.
16:56:06 [Julian]
masinter: wants question to publish clarified
16:56:28 [cshelly]
danc, I agree. that's why I think it's important to have these discussions about a public working draft, to force us to discuss and reach consensus
16:56:55 [cshelly]
16:57:02 [Julian]
rubys: explains WD doesn't need to be better of perfect
16:57:27 [Julian]
masinter: has concerns with the current editor's draft
16:57:37 [jgraham]
Having a public working group must change the rules here, surely?
16:57:48 [DanC]
the level of consensus should go in the status section. I wonder if we've been doing that.
16:57:48 [jgraham]
16:57:51 [Julian]
masinter: proposes sections to be marked as controversial
16:57:54 [dsinger]
I surely believe we all have concerns. if there weren't many, we'd be heading into last call :-)
16:58:35 [Julian]
rubys: issue marker for @summary is currently missing
16:58:56 [Julian]
rubys: will recommend to publish soon
16:59:13 [mjs]
cshelley, I will agree that would should resolve issues in a timely way and well before LC, I just think there are healthier ways to do it than using a WD publication as a forcing function
16:59:26 [Julian]
cshelly: need to start addressing contentious issues now
16:59:29 [jgraham]
In particular because the distinction between "in the working group" and "not in the working group" is very different to other groups; almost anyone with feedback can be "in the working group"
16:59:51 [Zakim]
16:59:53 [Zakim]
16:59:54 [Zakim]
- +1.519.378.aaee
16:59:54 [Zakim]
16:59:55 [dsinger]
thank you for fine chairing...
16:59:56 [Zakim]
16:59:56 [Zakim]
16:59:56 [Zakim]
16:59:57 [Zakim]
16:59:59 [Zakim]
17:00:00 [Zakim]
17:00:02 [Zakim]
17:00:04 [Zakim]
17:00:06 [Zakim]
- +1.703.234.aaaa
17:00:14 [Julian]
rrsagent, generate minutes
17:00:14 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Julian
17:00:17 [Zakim]
17:00:18 [Zakim]
HTML_WG()12:00PM has ended
17:00:19 [Zakim]
Attendees were Sam, +1.703.234.aaaa, Julian, Radhika_Roy, dsinger, Masinter, +1.415.595.aabb, +47.40.28.aacc, Stevef, Matt_May, +47.40.28.aadd, Lachy, +1.519.378.aaee, Laura, mjs,
17:00:21 [Zakim]
... kliehm, Cynthia_Shelly, DanC, annevk
17:01:03 [DanC]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:01:03 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate DanC
17:01:04 [pimpbot]
Title: HTML Weekly Teleconference -- 06 Aug 2009 (at
17:01:09 [DanC]
RRSAgent, make logs world access
17:02:16 [Julian]
s/rubys, pushing back one week/rubys: pushing back one week/
17:02:19 [Julian]
rrsagent, generate minutes
17:02:19 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Julian
17:02:21 [pimpbot]
Title: HTML Weekly Teleconference -- 06 Aug 2009 (at
17:03:25 [J_Voracek]
17:17:07 [LHSilli]
LHSilli has left #html-wg
17:33:25 [gsnedders_]
gsnedders_ has joined #html-wg
17:45:52 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #html-wg
17:46:14 [dbaron]
dbaron has left #html-wg
17:56:28 [kliehm]
kliehm has joined #html-wg
18:20:17 [mjs]
mjs has joined #html-wg
18:55:12 [MarcoAchury]
MarcoAchury has joined #html-wg
19:01:05 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #html-wg
19:05:23 [ChrisWilson]
ChrisWilson has joined #html-wg
19:30:51 [adele]
adele has joined #html-wg
20:49:26 [maddiin]
maddiin has joined #html-wg
21:00:18 [kliehm]
kliehm has joined #html-wg
21:01:24 [kliehm]
kliehm has left #html-wg
21:02:08 [hober]
hober has joined #html-wg
21:23:46 [Lachy]
Lachy has joined #html-wg
21:48:30 [MarcoAchury]
MarcoAchury has joined #html-wg
22:07:00 [mjs]
mjs has joined #html-wg
22:23:51 [heycam]
heycam has joined #html-wg
22:52:48 [hsivonen]
hsivonen has joined #html-wg
23:03:19 [adele]
adele has joined #html-wg
23:10:00 [pimpbot]
bugmail: [Bug 7237] New: Let current outlinee be null. (It holds the element whose outline is being created.) Spelling. Outline with one "e" <11>
23:11:12 [Philip]
Someone needs to make a bot that lets you close invalid bugs with a quick IRC message
23:35:14 [MarcoAchury]
MarcoAchury has joined #html-wg
23:40:10 [pimpbot]
changes: hixie: Allow File, FileData, and FileList to be passed through postMessage(). (whatwg r3548) <11>