HTML Weekly Teleconference

23 Jun 2011





<pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 13021] New: This is test <11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2011Jun/0987.html>

<pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 12974] Allow placeholder="" on <input type=number> <11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2011Jun/0988.html>

<pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 12490] potential conflict between Link: and <link> semantics <11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2011Jun/0990.html> 4** [Bug 12495] please mark the reference to RFC1345 as non-normative <11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2011Jun/0989.html>

<pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 13022] New: The whitespace formatting of the interface is really inconsistent (tabs vs spaces?) <11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2011Jun/0991.html>

<pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 13023] New: removing CSS outline bad for accessibility <11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2011Jun/0992.html>

<pimpbot> planet: Bruce: Installable web apps and interoperability <11http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/2011/installable-web-apps-and-interoperability/>

<pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 13023] removing CSS outline bad for accessibility <11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2011Jun/0994.html> 4** [Bug 13021] This is test <11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2011Jun/0993.html>

<pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 13024] New: What the hell is an IDL attribute? <11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2011Jun/0995.html>

<plh> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#idl-attributes

<pimpbot> Title: Web IDL (at dev.w3.org)

<pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 13025] Which of the accept, alt, autocomplete, checked, dirname, formaction, formenctype, formmethod, formnovalidate, formtarget, height, list, max, maxlength, min, multiple, pattern, placeholder, readonly, required, size, src, step, and width content attributes <11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2011Jun/0999.html> 4** [Bug 13026] New: What prose below defines when an element is a 'button'? <11http://lists.w3.org/A

<pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 12945] "On setting, if the given element has an id attribute, then the content attribute must be set to the value of that id attribute. Otherwise, the IDL attribute must be set to the empty string." is strange and breaks reflection. If the given element isn't in <11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2011Jun/1000.html>

<Julian> hsivonen, once again I have a validator.nu / @rel question...

<Julian> is rel=Copyright supposed to validate?

<Julian> note the uppercase letter

<Julian> it does not appear in http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#HTML5_link_type_extensions

<pimpbot> Title: existing rel values � Microformats Wiki (at microformats.org)

<Julian> but in the first table on that page

<pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 12676] DATA_CLONE_ERR code mismatch <11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2011Jun/1002.html> 4** [Bug 11181] link type "external" either not useful or underspecified <11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2011Jun/1001.html>

<hsivonen> Julian: Validator.nu does not currently support HTML 4 link types that were excluded from HTML5

<hsivonen> Julian: under a theory that HTML4 link types that aren't in the HTML5 spec itself were excluded from HTML5 intentionally

<hsivonen> Julian: now, 'copyright' is an interesting case, since it's not part of the WG Decision to exclude certain keywords

<hsivonen> (also, I acknowledge that the WG Decision didn't preclude keywords from being registered)

<hsivonen> Julian: this is an area that hasn't yet fully been figured out

<hsivonen> Julian: what do you think thould be done about the HTML 4 link types that aren't in the HTML5 spec itself (i.e. are knowingly dropped)?

<hsivonen> Julian: for copyright in particular, is there a use case other than "put a link in the browser UI that no browser shows by default and most browsers don't even have"?

<Julian> Hm

<Julian> first of all I'd like to understand what validator.nu is doing here

<Julian> with respect to your questions:

<Julian> - I believe that the HTML4 relations should be registered and valid, unless clearly harmful

<Julian> - Copyright: it does get displayed in FF with an addon

<Julian> ("Link Widgets")

<Julian> also, I'm not aware of any WG decision to prevent any keywords to be registered

<Julian> all we have talked about so far is whether some should appear *in the spec*

<Julian> finally, - broken record - it's not really relevant whether *browsers* display it

<Philip> HTML5 says "For historical reasons, user agents must also treat the keyword "copyright" like the license keyword.", so presumably it satisfies exactly the same use cases as license

<Julian> Philip: good point

<hsivonen> Julian: do you consider the relations that the WG explicitly Decided not to include in HTML5 "clearly harmful"?

<pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 11181] link type "external" either not useful or underspecified <11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2011Jun/1003.html>

<hsivonen> Julian: and yes, the Decision didn't make them unregistrable

<Julian> hsivonen, without remembering which these were... I don't think that the topic of being harmful ever came up

<hsivonen> Julian: also, did you notice that Hixie wanted to change the registration mechanism if the current mechanism just leads to all the old HTML 4 rel keywords getting registered?

<Julian> I heard that and found it funny

<hsivonen> Julian: index, up, first and last

<Julian> I also heard that he thinks that thinks that are "good" should be included in the spec

<hsivonen> Julian: those four have a bunch of synonyms, too, in HTML 4

<Julian> so he claerly doesn't grasp the convept of a registry yet

<Julian> I don't think these are harmful

<hsivonen> Julian: the Decision is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/att-0481/issue-118-decision.html

<pimpbot> Title: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-118 broken-link-types (at lists.w3.org)

<Julian> I remember that I agreed with their removal because they remained in the registry (that we had at that point)

<hsivonen> Julian: the Decision doesn't make it too clear what was Decided, though

<hsivonen> Julian: you'll need to look up the prevailing CP to see what actually got Decided

<hsivonen> Julian: would you be OK with the legacy HTML 4 rel keywords being valid but getting an error about how the Link Toolbar concept is failed browser UI so Web authors shouldn't bother?

<Julian> "The final proposal argues for the removal of some relation values, to wit, it suggests removal of index, up, first and last. It was pointed out in survey comments that these relations are already registered in the IANA link relation registry. Presumably, these relations could also be entered in whatever other registry or registries HTML5 adopts for this purpose. In support of this proposal,...

<Julian> ...and against the proposals to retain or alter these relations, a number of arguments were presented."

<Julian> I'm not sure I undstand the "but getting an error..." part.

<hsivonen> oops. getting a warning I meant

<Julian> again; link toolsbars are not the only use case

<Julian> (sry for the typos)

<hsivonen> Julian: what other use cases are there?

<hsivonen> (for those particular keywords)

<Julian> index and contents should be used in epub for instance

<hsivonen> Julian: are they supported by epub readers?

<Julian> the kindle HTML conversion for instance special-cases "#toc" instead of using the link relation as it should

<Julian> dunno

<Julian> I see no point in emitting warnings for things that are welldefined, have some tool support, and aren't harmful

<Julian> the spec doesn't define "valid" but "you will get a warning"

<hsivonen> Julian: they are harmful in the sense that they waste Web author time when included in newly-authored pages

<hsivonen> Julian: they aren't harmful in the sense that they aren't actively evil

<Julian> how do you know that the author hasn't got a use for them?

<Julian> there are many stuoid things you can do in HTML and wfor which you don't get warnings

<hsivonen> Julian: they don't have an observable effect

<Julian> they may have an observale effect in tools you don't know

<Julian> anyway

<Julian> was the point of delegating not to let the MF community dsicuss/approve/reject?

<hsivonen> Julian: so if I made those be reported as valid, how would you recommend I prevent Hixie from shifting the spec underneath me?

<hsivonen> Julian: yes, but those aren't discussed by the microformats community. They are grandfathered from the microformat POV, because they are in a W3C REC

<Julian> let him do so, and I'llask for a revert

<hsivonen> even though the REC is not worthy of being a REC

<Julian> I thought the process was to add them as "proposed", at which point they are considered valid

<Julian> until backed out?

<hsivonen> or until the process is changed if the process leads to unintended outcomes

<Julian> if the MF community rejects link relations because of where they come from then we need a different place for the registry

<Julian> "unintended" by whom? :-)

<hsivonen> Julian: by Hixie

<Julian> should I repeat the quote from the WG decision?

<hsivonen> Julian: no, the problem is that the MF community considers keywords from a 1990s REC presumptively accepted

<hsivonen> Julian: but yeah, it would also be silly to just wait for all of those keywords to become registered one by one

<hsivonen> that would just waste people's time

<Julian> re "copyright" vs "license": http://code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/linkrels.html doesn't list either

<pimpbot> Title: Google Code: Web Authoring Statistics: Link Relationships (at code.google.com)

<Julian> Philip: remind me, you have stats, right?

<Julian> Henri, I have no problem with some of them not being registered if nobody cares about them

<hsivonen> Julian: which one do you care about?

<hsivonen> *ones

<Julian> those for which I get warnings :-)

<Julian> let's see

<hsivonen> you mean errors? :-)

<Julian> y

<Julian> Copyright, Index, Chapter, Appendix (of the HTNL4 ones)

<Julian> plus some DC stuff, but let's get to that at a later point of time; it has the prefixing problem (surprise: I agree it's a problem inside @rel)

<Philip> Julian: I have stats in general

<Philip> Julian: I may or may not depending on what you specifically want :-)

<Julian> maybe validator.nu should obtain stats...

<Julian> link relations

<Philip> http://philip.html5.org/data/link-rel-rev.txt

<Philip> http://philip.html5.org/data/rel-rev-200904.txt

<Julian> thx

<Julian> so given these stats why is "license" valid but "copyright" is not???

<hsivonen> Julian: license is endorsed by microformats

<hsivonen> I don't know why they minted a new keyword

<Julian> "not invented here"?

<hsivonen> anyway, debating this is kinda silly. I'll make the HTML 4 keywords valid and see what Hixie does

<Julian> understood

<Julian> +1

<pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 13029] HTML 5 vai me complicar bem a vida agora... + vamos lá neh ! http://www.humorlol.com <11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2011Jun/1005.html> 4** [Bug 13029] New: HTML 5 vai me complicar bem a vida agora... + vamos lá neh ! http://www.humorlol.com <11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2011Jun/1004.html>

<hsivonen> ...except where HTML5 explicitly bans a keyword on either <a> or <link>

<hsivonen> Julian: btw, while you are here: What's the deal with DC not defining the format for their metadata fields?

<hsivonen> Julian: defining concepts without syntax seems entirely pointless as far as communication and interop goes

<hsivonen> who needs standardized abstract concepts?

<Julian> Henri, i have no idea what they thought

<Julian> some of their material doesn't seem to be written with programmatic consumption in mind

<Julian> doesn't schem.org have a similar problem?

<Julian> the "we'll do our best to extract something" rule?

<hsivonen> Julian: yes, schema.org has the same problem

<hsivonen> Julian: but DC seems to be semi-aware of formats mattering by talking about a scheme attribute

<hsivonen> but allowing (in theory) people to use arbitrary date formats is entire counterproductive compared to requiring a particular one

<Julian> maybe a commitee comromise

<Julian> *p*

<Julian> I use @scheme for dct.issued

<hsivonen> also, given how vague DC is, it seems nuts that dcterms duplicates dc and then adds some instead of just extending dc

<Julian> would be interesting to sestatson @scheme, and whether it's ever used to specify a date foramt otehr than iso8601

<Julian> do you understand the relation between these?

<hsivonen> Julian: between dc.issued and dcterms.issued?

<hsivonen> I don't

<Julian> I think Manu tried to explain it to me once

<Julian> yep

<hsivonen> both are underdefined

<hsivonen> it seems ridiculous to carefully underdefine another thing in order to avoid changing the previous underdefined thing

<Julian> is there something else that can be used to add a publication date?

<Julian> i do not disagree

<hsivonen> <time pubdate>

<hsivonen> Julian: I updated validator.nu

<hsivonen> with new stuff from the meta registry and the HTML4 keywords from the microformats.org "Formats" table

<Julian> thx -- what about "Index", though?

<hsivonen> Julian: not in that table

<hsivonen> Julian: looks like microformats.org wiki curators put it in the Rejected table due to the HTML WG Decision

<Julian> <time pubdate> "The pubdate attribute is a boolean attribute. If specified, it indicates that the date and time given by the element is the publication date and time of the nearest ancestor article element, or, if the element has no ancestor article element, of the document as a whole." that might actually work for me if I switch to HTML5

<pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 13030] New: it looks to me boolean is the right type for the 4th parameter 'replace' in the open operation as open in HTMLDocument. <11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2011Jun/1006.html>

<Julian> Interesting - so whom would I need to talk to (and where) to change this?

<hsivonen> so now dcterms.modified is the only registered dc thingy that isn't redundant with HTML built-in stuff

<hsivonen> Julian: Tantek

<hsivonen> Julian: public-html I guess

<CIA-1> validator: 03Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> * eebc5fbffddc r654 10syntax/relaxng/datatype/java/src/org/whattf/datatype/ (LinkRel.java ARel.java MetaName.java): Update meta and rel registry data.

<Julian> Henri: sent mail

<mjs> MikeSmith: are you around?

<MikeSmith> yeah, though chairing the a11y TF call right now

<mjs> oh, ok

<mjs> I have a request for you but it can wait

<MikeSmith> ok

<mjs> MikeSmith: my request is to create the PriorityRequest keyword in w3c bugzilla

<MikeSmith> OK

<MikeSmith> I will do that as soon as I'm off the call

<mjs> ok

trackbot, start meeting

<mjs> html wg call starts in 3 minutes so I hope it's over soon :-)

<trackbot> Date: 23 June 2011

<pimpbot> Title: {agenda} HTML WG telecon 2011-06-23 TF Reports, Tracker requests, from Maciej Stachowiak on 2011-06-22 (public-html-wg-announce@w3.org from April to June 2011) (at lists.w3.org)

<scribe> scribenick: paulc

ACTION items due by Thursday, June 23


<pimpbot> planet: Pippa: School of Webcraft Update 23/06/2011 <11http://learninglearning.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/school-of-webcraft-update-23062011/>

New issues this week

No new issues but there are 3 incomplete tracker requests.

Chairs are looking for text and titles for each of these requests.

Challenging to do without appropriate material.

<mjs> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12390

<pimpbot> 1112390: jrossi, P1, RESOLVED WONTFIX, 13A sandboxed MIME type attribute would be better than a fully qualified MIME type

One is still deficient but 2 have the necessary material.

Chairs will strip the TrackerRequest if the material is not provided for bug 12390 by midnight Fri Boston time.

<pimpbot> 11http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12390 jrossi, P1, RESOLVED WONTFIX, 13A sandboxed MIME type attribute would be better than a fully qualified MIME type



items closed last week

The CfC for the web authors publications closed last week.

There was a lot of discussions and objections to both normativity and non-normativity and what the Status section should say.

<mjs> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0287.html

<pimpbot> Title: Re: CfC: Publish HTML5 Edition for Web Authors as First Public Working Draft from Maciej Stachowiak on 2011-06-22 (public-html@w3.org from June 2011) (at lists.w3.org)

The Chairs declare that the WG has selected the text for the Status section since no one objected to this text.

In addition Mike Smith has also agreed to conver the document to W3C WGD form before publication.

items closing this week


<trackbot> ISSUE-30 -- Should HTML 5 include a longdesc attribute for images -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/30

<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-30: Should HTML 5 include a longdesc attribute for images - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

This call closes on Sat Jun 25.

Jonas agree to draft a counter proposal that has not yet appeared.


<trackbot> ISSUE-133 -- Add a modal attribute to html5 to indicate a modal segment of the DOM (modal dialog) -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/133

<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-133: Add a modal attribute to html5 to indicate a modal segment of the DOM (modal dialog) - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

This call closes on Sat Jun 25.

We are looking for counter proposals. Ted O'Connor did volunteer and asked for an extension. Chairs will decide soon on this extension request.


<trackbot> ISSUE-153 -- link type "external" either not useful or underspecified -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/153

<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-153: link type "external" either not useful or underspecified - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

This call closes on Sat Jun 25.

Julian has recently sent in a change proposal for issue-153.


<trackbot> ISSUE-154 -- "sidebar" might not be a proper use of a link relation -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/154

<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-154: "sidebar" might not be a proper use of a link relation - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

The call closes on Sat Jun 25.

Julian also volunteered for this item.

<Julian> ...will produce a proposal soonish :-)

Ted volunteered to contact Jonas about the proposal for ISSUE-30.

items closing next week

there are 4 items closing next week


<trackbot> ISSUE-134 -- Provide tablist and tab states for menu and command elements respectively -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/134

<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-134: Provide tablist and tab states for menu and command elements respectively - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

This call closes Jul 1 and is for counter-proposals.

None have been submitted and there are no volunteers.


<trackbot> ISSUE-150 -- consider reducing verbosity when talking about code points -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/150

<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-150: consider reducing verbosity when talking about code points - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

This call for counter proposals closes on Jul 1 and so far there are no volunteers.


<trackbot> ISSUE-163 -- Need a means for navigating between related timed tracks of media elements -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/163

<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-163: Need a means for navigating between related timed tracks of media elements - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

This is a call for change proposal which closes Jul 1. No volunteers yet.


<trackbot> ISSUE-164 -- remove or modify hgroup -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/164

<pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-164: remove or modify hgroup - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)

<rubys> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0303.html

<pimpbot> Title: Re: ISSUE-133 modal-attribute - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals from E.J. Zufelt on 2011-06-23 (public-html@w3.org from June 2011) (at lists.w3.org)

<Zakim> rubys, you wanted to talk (briefly) about issue-133

This call for change proposals closes Jul 1. No volunteer yet.

new calls this week


New surveys this week


Decisions this week


Testing Task Force report

<krisk> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-testsuite/2011Jun/0019.html

<pimpbot> Title: RE: HTML Testing Task Force Conf Call Agenda 6/14/2011 from Kris Krueger on 2011-06-23 (public-html-testsuite@w3.org from June 2011) (at lists.w3.org)

2 bugs were opened on existing tests but no consensus on these

WG members should look a test repository since new tests have been submitted

<krisk> see -> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html

<pimpbot> Title: html: Summary (at dvcs.w3.org)

kk: has asked a question about the dat format used in the HTML5 parser tests

<krisk> Here is the post on the list http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-testsuite/2011Jun/0018.html

<pimpbot> Title: RE: html5lib tests from Kris Krueger on 2011-06-23 (public-html-testsuite@w3.org from June 2011) (at lists.w3.org)

This is on the testing TF email list and is awaiting a response from the Team

No meeting next week and the TF will meet next on Jul 12

end of report

A11Y task force report

<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/2011/06/16-html-a11y-minutes.html

<pimpbot> Title: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference -- 16 Jun 2011 (at www.w3.org)

TF spent most of their time on figcaption being allowed in the spec as an alternative to an alt attribute on an image

Discussion touched on that figcaptions are often longer than alt values and this might cause screen readers to read out a lot more text than usual

Discussion went in the direction of checking the length of the figcaption text causing a possible warning.

<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/2011/06/23-html-a11y-minutes.html

<pimpbot> Title: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference -- 23 Jun 2011 (at www.w3.org)

TF members are reviewing specific parts of the HTML5 spec.

Today on the call (see minutes) the TF discussed some candidate LC comments.

Also there are several subteams ie media, text alternatives and the TF discussed reports from these sub-teams.

the TF continues to work on canvas issues especially around hit testing.

Looking for implementor feedback but so far not enough data.

end of report

New editorial assistants

Chairs posted a request for volunteers for editorial assistants largely for the main HTML5 spec.

See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0218.html

<pimpbot> Title: Editorial Assistants from Maciej Stachowiak on 2011-06-16 (public-html@w3.org from June 2011) (at lists.w3.org)

We have four volunteers and the Chairs are hoping that this will help process LC comments and to set priority on bugs.

Revised Last Call schedule

See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0315.html

<pimpbot> Title: Revised Timeline and New Bug Priority Policy from Maciej Stachowiak on 2011-06-23 (public-html@w3.org from June 2011) (at lists.w3.org)

This email changes the schedule dates and new bug priority bugs.

P1 bugs will imply 30 day turnaround.

You can request a priority of P1 by adding the new PriorityRequest keyword to a bug.

Decision Policy update

The Chairs have been resolving DP bugs and the Chairs expect to post a revised DP for the WG review on Jun 27.

<mjs> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html

<pimpbot> Title: HTML Working Group Decision Policy (at dev.w3.org)

<pimpbot> Title: Bugzilla Keyword Descriptions (at www.w3.org)

The Decison Policy V2 document is available today and reflects many bug fixes to the DP.



Any other business?

Julian: what is the status of the 2 outstanding revert requests which were mentioned last week?

The revert requestions are in Bugzilla.

mjs: A WG member should post the revert request to the public-html@w3.org email list.

Julian: I believe I asked for the cross-origin change to be reverted on the mailing list in late May.

<mjs> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html#enhanced-cc

<pimpbot> Title: HTML Working Group Decision Policy (at dev.w3.org)

<pimpbot> changes: sam: Record change proposal for issue 153 <11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2011Jun/0126.html>

<pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 12390] A sandboxed MIME type attribute would be better than a fully qualified MIME type <11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2011Jun/1007.html>

Julian: The W3C process says you cannot add new features.

mjs: That is not true. Substantive changes must be documented and the Chairs have asked for prior notice of such changes.

Julian: Are we clear that if we add new features that there will be another LC

<rubys> I don't see cross-origin (or even "origin") in last week's minutes: http://www.w3.org/2011/06/16-html-wg-minutes.html

<pimpbot> Title: HTML Weekly Teleconference -- 16 Jun 2011 (at www.w3.org)

mjs: Suggest WG members read the Process Document definition of "substantive changes".

<MikeSmith> the W3C Process document does *not* prohibit substantive changes being made during LC

Julian: IETF members are having trouble understanding the meaning of Last Call for the HTML5 specification. What document should I review?

mjs: Reviewing either the Editors draft or the static LC document are both fine.
... We also have the complication of changes being made without there being an associated W3C bug and the Chairs are working on this problem.

<MikeSmith> the LCWD is a stable, unchanging document, and the IETF reviewers and anybody else is welcome to use that as the basis for their review -- we have not made any changes do that draft and will not

<MikeSmith> I don't see this as being confusing at all

<pimpbot> Title: HTML Weekly Teleconference -- 23 Jun 2011 (at www.w3.org)

Julian: Do we draw a line between fixing existing features and adding new features?

mjs: Eventually we will have to lock down with no new features otherwise we would have an infinite number of LCs.

Any other comments on LC or other topics?


Chair and scribe for next week

Not discussed.


The meeting adjourned at :45mins after the hour.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2011/06/23 16:46:30 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136  of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/report/record/
Succeeded: s/A11T/A11Y/
Succeeded: s/tems/teams/
Succeeded: s/does prohibit/does *not* prohibit/
Succeeded: s/will now/will not/
Found ScribeNick: paulc
Inferring Scribes: paulc
Present: adrianba

WARNING: Fewer than 3 people found for Present list!

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2011AprJun/0023.html
Found Date: 23 Jun 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/06/23-html-wg-minutes.html
People with action items: 

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

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]