HTML Weekly Teleconference

15 Mar 2012


See also: IRC log


glenn, eliot, Radhika_Roy, [Microsoft], adrianba, Joe_Steele, Clarke, Sam, +1.415.595.aaaa, Wayne_Carr, hober, Mike, Plh, Janina
Maciej Stachowiak
Adrian Bateman


<trackbot> Date: 15 March 2012

ACTION items due by Thursday, March 15

mjs: there are none

New Issues This Week

mjs: there are none - there is still a trackerrequest for a post-LC bug

Items Closed Last Week


<trackbot> ISSUE-170 -- make URIs valid link relations -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/170


<trackbot> ISSUE-192 -- title attribute definition does not match reality -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/192


<trackbot> ISSUE-204 -- Exempt ARIA attributes from the rule that prohibits reference to hidden elements -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/204

<scribe> ScribeNick: adrianba

mjs: for 204 we received a proposal and counter proposal

Items Closing This Week


<trackbot> ISSUE-187 -- Document conformance has to be stable over the time -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/187

mjs: proposal for amicable resolution - only one proposal remains

<scribe> ... closed with no objections


<trackbot> ISSUE-80 -- document conformance and device dependent display of title attribute content -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/80

mjs: did not receive a counter proposal so likely to go to CfC soon


<trackbot> ISSUE-131 -- Should we add a caret location API to canvas, or is the focus API sufficient? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/131


<trackbot> ISSUE-158 -- HTML4's content-model for <object> should continue -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/158


<trackbot> 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

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/205


<trackbot> ISSUE-179 -- {audio,video} require param child (or equivalent) -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/179

mjs: call for amicable resolution closes mar 15 - only single change proposal remains

Items Closing Next Week


<trackbot> ISSUE-193 -- Remove CSS example that promotes inaccessible content -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/193


<trackbot> ISSUE-194 -- Provide a mechanism for associating a full transcript with an audio or video element. -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/194


<trackbot> ISSUE-195 -- Enhance http request generation from forms -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/195


<trackbot> ISSUE-196 -- Define user agent http response handling behaviour -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/196


<trackbot> ISSUE-197 -- Accept attribute should allow file extensions in addition to the current allowed values -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/197


<trackbot> ISSUE-199 -- Define complete processing requirements for ARIA attributes -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/199


<trackbot> ISSUE-201 -- Provide canvas location and hit testing capability to fallback content -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/201


<trackbot> ISSUE-190 -- Replace poor coding example for figure with multiple images -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/190

New Calls this week

mjs: there are none

New Surveys this week

mjs: there are none

Decisions this week

mjs: also none

Other Business

<MikeSmith> for the record mikeSmith is on the cal

<MikeSmith> *call

mjs: several other topics to discuss
... 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
... working out how to get these published

<paulc> The Chairs decision on the heartbeat publication is in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0221.html

MikeSmith: we had some private discussions about the publications
... the chairs were asking me as team contact for the WG to prepare the WDs
... for publication today
... i spent a lot of time doing that
... but we had some disagreement about two issues
... around Hixie spec'ing out the behaviour for dialog element
... change proposal open for 3 months or more
... all agree that we need to add that
... second is for allow-popups on iframe sandbox
... again no disagreement because webkit and IE are already implementing support for that feature
... don't have much choice but to spec the behaviour that is implemented
... we don't have the spec for that behaviour because the implementers didn't provide a spec for it
... and expect that Hixie is supposed to reverse engineer their implementation
... I think that that is a significant amount of work - not a matter of adding a paragraph of spec text
... requires testing and attempting to document what they implemented
... that's a significant amount of work
... WG has decided the spec should include a feature but not assessed the amount of work involved
... we can't do that and publish today or a week from now
... we have to decide when to publish with that
... same with dialog - CP is not sufficient for implementers to add the dialog in their browsers
... so there's a large amount of additional work required to implement those decisions
... it's not going to happen in a week or two weeks
... not sure how much time it will take to do this given the other work such as canvas Path work
... i would love to be able to give a date when we can do that

<paulc> The Chairs are planning to meet after this meeting to discuss this status from Mike.

MikeSmith: but i can't
... 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
... such as the open accessibility issues
... i suggest we go ahead and publish without these 2 issues resolved

<Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to talk

MikeSmith: i think dialog is a HTML.next feature
... i don't think anyone is demanding that we implement dialog for HTML5
... do we need it for stable HTML5?
... same thing could be said for allow-popups
... i don't think this needs to be done in the next 2 months - could be pushed off to the next version of HTML
... in the meantime we have w3c obligation to publish at regular intervals and we've neglected that for last 6 months or more
... could still publish WD with lack of dialog and sandbox allow-popups noted as known issues
... i think holding up publication is a bad idea

mjs: like other people to comment
... chairs need to decide if we publish today without these changes or wait
... would like to hear input

adrianba: i don't recall seeing a request for more information about the allow-popup sandbox proposal

mjs: i talked to edward about the dialog proposal and i believe he would prefer to see publication without that for the time being

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

paulc: the chairs have a meeting scheduled after this call to discuss this matter
... none of the points that mike or ted raised are blocking
... to tell us after this time that there is a need for more information is a problem
... suggest we move off this topic and move on

SteveF: i can't speak to the popup stuff
... i think we should publish the heartbeat but i disagree that dialog should be pushed off with no timeframe to html.next - would like to see in html5

<Zakim> 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

MikeSmith: the current proposal from ted which was put forward in good faith ironically is not sufficient for dialog
... there are issues around how do we make this work with full screen for example
... this is a proposed feature in the platform and we need to make it work with dialog
... and a number of other features
... that is blocking for dialog
... that's a considerable amount of work

<paulc> I disagree with Mike's assertion that we cannot implement <dialog> due to the need to integrate with another feature. We should implement and then file bugs to gain that alignment.

<mjs> ack

wcarr: i hope we publish heartbeats as soon as possible and more quickly so they're not behind the ED
... if we did it more quickly issues like this wouldn't be so important because another would be along within 6 weeks or so

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
... if people think there's a problem becuase it isn't aligned with another feature then they should file bugs
... but to say we shouldn't move forward is inappropriate

mjs: Mike and Ted , you mentioned some issues and Mike you've probably had conversations with Ian about clarifications
... if you think there are things needing clarification please get it onto the mailing list because people may be able to provide information
... i encourage you to communicate those to the group as a whole

<Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to say that many WG decisions are not implentable

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
... for example, Julian said he intended his proposal to be open-ended about how to make the spec better
... the CP does not unambigiously document what should be changed
... chairs agreed that they'll accept the CP because no one objected
... but it was never implementable

mjs: this should be something to put in the mailing list

MikeSmith: please do not put the responsibility on me for this

mjs: i'm asking for examples on the list and if there are process changes you think would improve things please suggest that
... please get this in the mailing list

MikeSmith: thanks, i will do that

SteveF: Hixie adds stuff to the spec all the time that is half formed or does not have agreement or consensus
... we have dialog that has some consensus so i don't see why it can't be added and then the details worked out
... chairs and the WG needs to work this out
... think the argument is spurious that it can't be added because it's not complete

<paulc> +1 to SteveF points

SteveF: menu item for example is in there but hasn't been implemented (except context menu not according to spec)
... doesn't need to be fully formed to be in the spec
... not the way Hixie works, why should CPs have to be up to that standard

mjs: thanks for the input on this topic
... moving on in the interests of time
... CfC on the F2F meeting - no objections on coordinated meeting with HTML and WebApps WG in May in Silicon Valley
... do intend to have interim meeting there
... any comments?

paulc: registration page will be available soon
... possibly today or tomorrow


<trackbot> ISSUE-183 -- Enhance and simplify the time element -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/183

mjs: chairs noted 2 proposals agreed on one aspect, something already in the spec
... CfC to take that off the table so time wouldn't be spent on something everyone agrees on
... sent feedback on proposals asking to remove those points and justify everything else
... change was about time syntax
... Revert request for http+aes scheme was received
... several messages of agreement including original proposer - revert completed
... DST changes - links to email about DST changes
... W3C telcons are on north american time (US Eastern)
... your time may change


mjs: there is a new weekly summary


mjs: decisions pending heartbeat drafts - lots of recently closed items that were CfC at various times that chairs haven't published yet
... may have to reassess that knowing that 2 decisions are not applied yet
... we have not overlooked them


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

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

SteveF: what is the status here?

<mjs> http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-164

paulc: this is in my queue to evaluate - there are 5 change proposals

<paulc> http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-164

paulc: haven't got to it yet
... this work is in the chairs input queue to evaluate CPs and it is a work in progress

Scribe for next meeting

mjs: volunteers?

<glenn> i can scribe

mjs: Sam will chair that meeting
... thanks glenn


mjs: thanks for calling in - see you next week

<scribe> Scribe: Adrian Bateman

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/03/15 16:50:18 $

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/this should/dialog should/
Found ScribeNick: adrianba
Found Scribe: Adrian Bateman
Default Present: glenn, eliot, Radhika_Roy, [Microsoft], adrianba, Joe_Steele, Clarke, Sam, +1.415.595.aaaa, Wayne_Carr, hober, Mike, Plh, Janina
Present: glenn eliot Radhika_Roy [Microsoft] adrianba Joe_Steele Clarke Sam +1.415.595.aaaa Wayne_Carr hober Mike Plh Janina
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2012JanMar/0024.html
Found Date: 15 Mar 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-html-wg-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]