16:04:30 RRSAgent has joined #html-wg
16:04:30 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-html-wg-irc
16:04:32 RRSAgent, make logs public
16:04:34 Zakim, this will be html_wg
16:04:34 ok, trackbot, I see HTML_WG()12:00PM already started
16:04:35 Meeting: HTML Weekly Teleconference
16:04:35 Date: 15 March 2012
16:04:51 TOPIC: ACTION items due by Thursday, March 15
16:04:59 mjs: there are none
16:05:08 TOPIC: New Issues This Week
16:05:20 mjs: there are none - there is still a trackerrequest for a post-LC bug
16:05:27 TOPIC: Items Closed Last Week
16:05:37 ISSUE-170?
16:05:37 ISSUE-170 -- make URIs valid link relations -- open
16:05:37 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/170
16:05:45 ISSUE-192?
16:05:46 ISSUE-192 -- title attribute definition does not match reality -- open
16:05:46 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/192
16:05:55 ISSUE-204?
16:05:55 ISSUE-204 -- Exempt ARIA attributes from the rule that prohibits reference to hidden elements -- open
16:05:55 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/204
16:06:01 ScribeNick: adrianba
16:06:16 mjs: for 204 we received a proposal and counter proposal
16:06:21 TOPIC: Items Closing This Week
16:06:25 ISSUE-187?
16:06:25 ISSUE-187 -- Document conformance has to be stable over the time -- open
16:06:25 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/187
16:06:38 mjs: proposal for amicable resolution - only one proposal remains
16:06:42 ... closed with no objections
16:06:48 ISSUE-80?
16:06:48 ISSUE-80 -- document conformance and device dependent display of title attribute content -- open
16:06:48 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/80
16:07:01 mjs: did not receive a counter proposal so likely to go to CfC soon
16:07:05 ISSUE-131?
16:07:05 ISSUE-131 -- Should we add a caret location API to canvas, or is the focus API sufficient? -- open
16:07:05 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/131
16:07:10 ISSUE-158?
16:07:10 ISSUE-158 -- HTML4's content-model for should continue -- open
16:07:10 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/158
16:07:19 +hober
16:07:25 ISSUE-205?
16:07:25 ISSUE-205 -- Define what author guidance and/or methods should be provided to those that wish to create accessible text editors using canvas as a rendering surface. -- open
16:07:25 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/205
16:07:33 ISSUE-179?
16:07:33 ISSUE-179 -- {audio,video} require param child (or equivalent) -- open
16:07:33 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/179
16:07:52 +??P8
16:07:56 mjs: call for amicable resolution closes mar 15 - only single change proposal remains
16:08:08 TOPIC: Items Closing Next Week
16:08:12 ISSUE-193?
16:08:12 ISSUE-193 -- Remove CSS example that promotes inaccessible content -- open
16:08:12 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/193
16:08:18 ISSUE-194?
16:08:18 ISSUE-194 -- Provide a mechanism for associating a full transcript with an audio or video element. -- open
16:08:18 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/194
16:08:23 ISSUE-195?
16:08:23 ISSUE-195 -- Enhance http request generation from forms -- open
16:08:23 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/195
16:08:30 ISSUE-196?
16:08:30 ISSUE-196 -- Define user agent http response handling behaviour -- open
16:08:30 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/196
16:08:40 ISSUE-197?
16:08:41 ISSUE-197 -- Accept attribute should allow file extensions in addition to the current allowed values -- open
16:08:41 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/197
16:08:46 ISSUE-199?
16:08:46 ISSUE-199 -- Define complete processing requirements for ARIA attributes -- open
16:08:46 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/199
16:09:01 Stevef has joined #html-wg
16:09:05 Zakim, call mike
16:09:05 ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made
16:09:05 ISSUE-201?
16:09:05 ISSUE-201 -- Provide canvas location and hit testing capability to fallback content -- open
16:09:05 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/201
16:09:07 +Mike
16:09:13 ISSUE-190?
16:09:13 ISSUE-190 -- Replace poor coding example for figure with multiple images -- open
16:09:13 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/190
16:09:27 TOPIC: New Calls this week
16:09:33 mjs: there are none
16:09:36 TOPIC: New Surveys this week
16:09:40 mjs: there are none
16:09:44 TOPIC: Decisions this week
16:09:47 mjs: also none
16:09:51 TOPIC: Other Business
16:10:05 for the record mikeSmith is on the cal
16:10:14 *call
16:10:14 mjs: several other topics to discuss
16:10:28 ksweeney has left #html-wg
16:10:29 wcarr has joined #html-wg
16:10:31 q?
16:10:54 ... first CfC to publish heartbeat drafts - there were 2 objections but we believe the correct thing to do is to proceed over those objections - this is a WD and does not require consensus
16:11:09 ... working out how to get these published
16:11:14 q+ to talk
16:11:40 The Chairs decision on the heartbeat publication is in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0221.html
16:11:42 MikeSmith: we had some private discussions about the publications
16:11:47 -glenn
16:11:56 ... the chairs were asking me as team contact for the WG to prepare the WDs
16:12:02 ... for publication today
16:12:08 ... i spent a lot of time doing that
16:12:09 +??P0
16:12:18 zakim, ??p0 is glenn
16:12:18 +glenn; got it
16:12:18 +Plh
16:12:23 ... but we had some disagreement about two issues
16:12:43 ... around Hixie spec'ing out the behaviour for dialog element
16:13:03 ... change proposal open for 3 months or more
16:13:10 ... all agree that we need to add that
16:13:20 ... second is for allow-popups on iframe sandbox
16:13:37 ... again no disagreement because webkit and IE are already implementing support for that feature
16:13:48 ... don't have much choice but to spec the behaviour that is implemented
16:14:02 ... we don't have the spec for that behaviour because the implementers didn't provide a spec for it
16:14:15 ... and expect that Hixie is supposed to reverse engineer their implementation
16:14:37 ... I think that that is a significant amount of work - not a matter of adding a paragraph of spec text
16:14:40 janina has joined #html-wg
16:14:53 ... requires testing and attempting to document what they implemented
16:15:04 +??P11
16:15:11 ... that's a significant amount of work
16:15:12 zakim, P11 is Janina
16:15:12 sorry, janina, I do not recognize a party named 'P11'
16:15:34 ... WG has decided the spec should include a feature but not assessed the amount of work involved
16:15:55 ... we can't do that and publish today or a week from now
16:15:58 zakim, ??P11 is Janina
16:15:58 +Janina; got it
16:16:09 ... we have to decide when to publish with that
16:16:28 ... same with dialog - CP is not sufficient for implementers to add the dialog in their browsers
16:16:46 ... so there's a large amount of additional work required to implement those decisions
16:16:54 ... it's not going to happen in a week or two weeks
16:17:20 ... not sure how much time it will take to do this given the other work such as canvas Path work
16:17:37 ... i would love to be able to give a date when we can do that
16:17:39 The Chairs are planning to meet after this meeting to discuss this status from Mike.
16:17:42 ... but i can't
16:18:22 ... we have the heartbeat obligation to publish at 3 months and we have the obligation from the decision policy that the editor gets something done in time for us to publish an updated WD along with everything else
16:18:32 ... such as the open accessibility issues
16:18:57 ... i suggest we go ahead and publish without these 2 issues resolved
16:18:58 q+
16:19:04 ack MikeSmith
16:19:04 MikeSmith, you wanted to talk
16:19:18 ... i think dialog is a HTML.next feature
16:19:24 q+
16:19:34 ... i don't think anyone is demanding that we implement dialog for HTML5
16:19:40 ... do we need it for stable HTML5?
16:19:43 q+
16:19:55 ... same thing could be said for allow-popups
16:20:23 ... i don't think this needs to be done in the next 2 months - could be pushed off to the next version of HTML
16:20:52 ... in the meantime we have w3c obligation to publish at regular intervals and we've neglected that for last 6 months or more
16:21:18 ... could still publish WD with lack of dialog and sandbox allow-popups noted as known issues
16:21:28 ... i think holding up publication is a bad idea
16:21:43 q?
16:21:45 mjs: like other people to comment
16:22:09 ... chairs need to decide if we publish today without these changes or wait
16:22:19 ... would like to hear input
16:22:28 q+
16:22:35 ack adrianba
16:23:21 q+ to respond to adrian
16:23:26 ack mjs
16:23:38 adrianba: i don't recall seeing a request for more information about the allow-popup sandbox proposal
16:24:04 mjs: i talked to edward about the dialog proposal and i believe he would prefer to see publication without that for the time being
16:24:36 mark has joined #html-wg
16:24:48 edward: the details missing that prevent the editor completing it are waiting for info from the css wg - i think in the interest of getting heartbeat doc out i'm in favour of publishing
16:24:53 ack paulc
16:25:14 q+ to say that the current dialog from proposal from ted+hixie is not fully implementable as specified due to ambiguity in the CP
16:25:30 paulc: the chairs have a meeting scheduled after this call to discuss this matter
16:25:50 ... none of the points that mike or ted raised are blocking
16:26:05 ... to tell us after this time that there is a need for more information is a problem
16:26:11 ... suggest we move off this topic and move on
16:26:20 ack Stevef
16:26:57 SteveF: i can't speak to the popup stuff
16:27:21 ... i think we should publish the heartbeat but i disagree that this should be pushed off with no timeframe to html.next - would like to see in html5
16:27:24 q+
16:27:27 ack MikeSmith
16:27:27 MikeSmith, you wanted to respond to adrian and to say that the current dialog from proposal from ted+hixie is not fully implementable as specified due to ambiguity in the CP
16:27:31 s/this should/dialog should/
16:28:17 MikeSmith: the current proposal from ted which was put forward in good faith ironically is not sufficient for dialog
16:28:28 ... there are issues around how do we make this work with full screen for example
16:28:41 q+
16:28:49 q+
16:28:53 ... this is a proposed feature in the platform and we need to make it work with dialog
16:28:59 ... and a number of other features
16:29:07 ... that is blocking for dialog
16:29:27 ... that's a considerable amount of work
16:29:35 anne has joined #html-wg
16:31:08 I disagree with Mike's assertion that we cannot implement due to the need to integrate with another feature. We should implement and then file bugs to gain that alignment.
16:31:12 ack
16:31:20 ack wcarr
16:32:05 wcarr: i hope we publish heartbeats as soon as possible and more quickly so they're not behind the ED
16:32:17 ack paulc
16:32:24 ... if we did it more quickly issues like this wouldn't be so important because another would be along within 6 weeks or so
16:33:00 paulc: i disagree strongly with Mike that we can't implement a WG decision because some people think we need to decide how to solve the problem with another immature spec
16:33:14 ... if people think there's a problem becuase it isn't aligned with another feature then they should file bugs
16:33:20 ack mjs
16:33:23 ... but to say we shouldn't move forward is inappropriate
16:33:37 q+ to say that many WG decisions are not implentable
16:34:00 mjs: Mike and Ted , you mentioned some issues and Mike you've probably had conversations with Ian about clarifications
16:34:24 ... if you think there are things needing clarification please get it onto the mailing list because people may be able to provide information
16:34:36 q?
16:34:39 ... i encourage you to communicate those to the group as a whole
16:34:42 q+
16:34:52 ack MikeSmith
16:34:52 MikeSmith, you wanted to say that many WG decisions are not implentable
16:35:37 MikeSmith: as far as WG decisions being implementable i can say as someone who has made a good faith attempt to implement a decision that the CP often do not contain sufficient detail in order to implement anything unambiguously
16:36:22 ... for example, Julian said he intended his proposal to be open-ended about how to make the spec better
16:36:32 ... the CP does not unambigiously document what should be changed
16:36:46 ... chairs agreed that they'll accept the CP because no one objected
16:36:51 ... but it was never implementable
16:37:14 mjs: this should be something to put in the mailing list
16:37:36 MikeSmith: please do not put the responsibility on me for this
16:38:15 mjs: i'm asking for examples on the list and if there are process changes you think would improve things please suggest that
16:38:20 ... please get this in the mailing list
16:38:24 ack Stevef
16:38:26 MikeSmith: thanks, i will do that
16:38:54 SteveF: Hixie adds stuff to the spec all the time that is half formed or does not have agreement or consensus
16:39:11 ... we have dialog that has some consensus so i don't see why it can't be added and then the details worked out
16:39:20 ... chairs and the WG needs to work this out
16:39:35 ... think the argument is spurious that it can't be added because it's not complete
16:39:44 +1 to SteveF points
16:39:58 ... menu item for example is in there but hasn't been implemented (except context menu not according to spec)
16:40:06 ... doesn't need to be fully formed to be in the spec
16:40:16 ... not the way Hixie works, why should CPs have to be up to that standard
16:40:32 mjs: thanks for the input on this topic
16:40:42 ... moving on in the interests of time
16:41:12 mjs: CfC on the F2F meeting - no objections on coordinated meeting with HTML and WebApps WG in May in Silicon Valley
16:41:19 ... do intend to have interim meeting there
16:41:22 ... any comments?
16:41:41 paulc: registration page will be available soon
16:41:53 ... possibly today or tomorrow
16:42:04 ISSUE-183?
16:42:04 ISSUE-183 -- Enhance and simplify the time element -- open
16:42:04 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/183
16:42:22 mjs: chairs noted 2 proposals agreed on one aspect, something already in the spec
16:42:36 ... CfC to take that off the table so time wouldn't be spent on something everyone agrees on
16:42:54 ... sent feedback on proposals asking to remove those points and justify everything else
16:43:03 ... change was about time syntax
16:43:31 mjs: Revert request for http+aes scheme was received
16:43:54 ... several messages of agreement including original proposer - revert completed
16:44:12 mjs: DST changes - links to email about DST changes
16:44:23 ... W3C telcons are on north american time (US Eastern)
16:44:35 ... your time may change
16:44:44 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Mar/0081.html
16:44:51 mjs: there is a new weekly summary
16:44:58 http://www.w3.org/QA/2012/03/openweb-weekly-28.html
16:45:38 mjs: decisions pending heartbeat drafts - lots of recently closed items that were CfC at various times that chairs haven't published yet
16:45:51 ... may have to reassess that knowing that 2 decisions are not applied yet
16:45:57 ... we have not overlooked them
16:46:51 ISSUE-164?
16:46:51 ISSUE-164 -- remove or modify hgroup -- open
16:46:51 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/164
16:46:58 SteveF: what is the status here?
16:47:02 http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-164
16:47:20 paulc: this is in my queue to evaluate - there are 5 change proposals
16:47:24 http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-164
16:47:31 ... haven't got to it yet
16:47:47 ... this work is in the chairs input queue to evaluate CPs and it is a work in progress
16:48:14