ISSUE-76 -- Concerns about Microdata section and inclusion/exclusion of RDFa -- OPEN
Manu: got through the html+rdfa and pubrules.
... everything looks like it's ready to go
... now we need the transition request. Mike?
ACTION-147 -- Paul Cotton to work with Manu on making HTML+RDFa ready to publish -- due 2009-10-08 -- OPEN
Paul: sent some suggestions. status need some
tweaking.
... some missing references
Paul: Mike needs a short name for the draft. html+rdfa
Manu: rdfa-in-html ?
... I'll look at Paul's email
ACTION-147 Work with Manu on making HTML+RDFa ready to publish closed
ACTION-139 -- Manu Sporny to propose 3 separate HTML5 drafts and the external Microdata draft -- due 2009-10-01 -- OPEN
Manu: since rdfa is separated from the main body.
it makes sense to pull the microdata section out of the main spec as well.
... we need pull it out, then we need 2 alternatives to reference normatively
or not to microdata and html_rdfa.
... I'm working on the 3 documents.
... there should be discussion about separating out microdata, and on making
references to microdata/html+rdfa.
Sam: now that we have the process in place, we can move forward
Manu: I'll put a discussion topic then. My preference is of course to pull microdata out, and reference normatively microdata and html+rdfa
ACTION-139 Propose 3 separate HTML5 drafts and the external Microdata draft due date now 10-15
<mjs> fwiw my preference, and I think this would be easier to get consensus on, is to refer to neither normatively
ACTION-137 -- Larry Masinter to update IRI spec based on comments to Public-IRI (Including those from HTML-WG members), -- due 2009-09-28 -- OPEN
Larry: we're having a meeting at Google on Monday with
Martin Duerst, Erik van der Poel, Mark Davis; call in with IETF area directors
& proposed chair.
... I'm hoping to get Ian Hickson as well
... hoping to make some progress on the process and on the content
... the goal is to align html spec for URL with every other internet spec
... so we need to get everybody on board
... feel good on making progress on getting the parties on board
... would report back next week
Sam: when will this be completed?
Larry: lots of parties that need to be involved. fallback is to say that html is different from others.
Sam: we need to set some expectation on when we'll use forward without waiting
Larry: 2 weeks before last call
Sam: we're trying to get this stuff done within a month. that's the rough idea.
Larry: it's progressing a lot faster than expected, so I'm optimistic.
ACTION-137 Update IRI spec based on comments to Public-IRI (Including those from HTML-WG members), due date now 10-15
Larry: not sure I'll be able to make the call, but will send email
ACTION-138 -- Steve Faulkner to produce a matrix based on Henri's work -- due 2009-10-08 -- OPEN
Steve: still working on it. it's taking over by the ARIA User Agent Implementation Task Force at the moment
Steve: we've been discussing it. different
approach now. working out from the spec and see where we disagree.
... we'll need to liaise with other WAI Groups as well
Rich: will you be coming with proposed edits?
Steve: yes, that's the intent
Rich: Sam, what's the expectation for the draft/edits?
Sam: we'll discuss that later in this call
Steve: I can report next week but this issue will be taken over by the task force
Maciej: we already an issue open for this. if what you're going to do is to propose edits, I recommend starting those specific changes in bugzilla, since we don't have a case of the editor rejecting the edits yet
action-138, due 10-22
Sam: and we'll discuss the process at the end
ACTION-144 -- Manu Sporny to produce a separate spec for profile attribute -- due 2009-10-08 -- OPEN
Manu: this issue overlaps with RDFa slightly.
profile is being obsoleted in HTML 5. plan is get rid of it in the future.
... some people have an issue with that. some are fine with it being replaced
by a rel reserved word
... it attempts to solve the versioning problem in HTML.
... so it's linked to a couple of issues
Manu: the proposal, Extended Processing Behavior
in HTML5 uses the version attribute
... that's effectively what profile was trying to do
... there has been discussed on there. we could make changes in RDFa 1.1 and
still provide backward compatibility with RDFa 1.0 if we had this version
attribute. so there is a real reason for that.
... the discussion so far went through a wide range.
... so there will be an other draft
... hoping for more feedback on the new one
Larry: not sure it was clear how independent this work is from RDFa.
<mjs> I have issues with "version" too but I'll take it to email
Sam: the original issue is broader
Manu: Doug Schepers is interested in using RDFa in SVG. It could potentially used in other drafts.
Julian: the current HTML 5 does not make profile conforming. it's only in the section about obsolete attributes that are not conforming.
<msporny_> +1 to what Julian said.
Julian: given the amount of documents that relies on @profile, or the amoun of specs using it, we need to make it conforming.
Sam: it would be good to use bugzilla as well here. nice to have a specific proposal associated with it
Manu: seems ok. I thought it was rejected by Ian in the past
Sam: I think Ian is not likely to take it but let's go through the bugzilla
<Julian> (documents may not be *relying* on @profile, but they contain it because they want to conform to other specs, and there's simply no good reason to make this non-conformant until those other specs have moved to a different mechanism (which we'd need to specify))
ACTION: Manu to create a bugzilla entry on head/@profile [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/08-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]
Created ACTION-150 - Create a bugzilla entry on head/@profile [on Manu Sporny - due 2009-10-15].
action-144 due 10-29
ACTION-144 Produce a separate spec for profile attribute due date now 10-29
action-127?
ACTION-127 -- Paul Cotton to establish process for "official WG response" to other WG's RFC on LC drafts -- due 2009-10-01 -- OPEN
Paul: still working with the HCG to figure
upcoming last calls
... see my status report
... responding to all solicitations on the chairs list
... one we can use as an example is MathML 3.0
... I arrange to have their last call close after TPAC
... so we need volunteers to review it
... currently we use MathML 2.0 in HTML 5. should we change it to MathML 3.0
would be one of the questions
Sam: asking for volunteers seems fine to me. re MathML 3.0, let's enter an issue in bugzilla
ACTION: Paul to enter a bugzilla entry on MathML 3.0 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/08-html-wg-minutes.html#action02]
Created ACTION-151 - Enter a bugzilla entry on MathML 3.0 [on Paul Cotton - due 2009-10-15].
action-127 due 10-22
ACTION-127 establish process for "official WG response" to other WG's RFC on LC drafts due date now 10-22
Sam: we got approval on both task forces. volunteers?
Paul: got one volunteer for test tf.
MichaelCooper: got some volunteers for the HTML/PF TF, from both sides.
Sam: so we need to have this in hand
MichaelCooper: will send the info over
Manu: testing. we got a suite of tests for RDFa in HTML5. we'll submit those
Paul: can you reply on the thread saying that?
Manu: sure
Larry: scope of testing tf. will the tf give feedback on things that are not testable?
Maciej: anyone can give feedback at anytime, that includes the TF
Larry: I'm suggesting if it would be useful to highlight this so they keep it in mind. their goal is to improve the spec
Sam: we have a decision for the TF and you now want to change the scope?
Larry: if everyone is happy we can move on
Paul: first task of the TF is to define its scope
actually...
... send email to the TF or participate in it
<paulc> Testing TF re scope see point 8 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/0687.html
Larry: thank you
<rubys> W3C Combined Technical Plenary / Advisory Committee Meeting
Sam: there is a WBS going on. please reply
there.
... don't think we have a firm agenda yet.
... friday morning, 10-12 is with TC39
... comments?
Larry: seems to me that it was more an issue with webapps than us
Sam: it's not specific to us, it also includes webapps indeed
Paul: how does TC39 going to meet with the webapps wg?
Sam: scheduling has been a logistic nightmare. best we could come with
Paul: the list coming out of TC39 was more pertinent to webapps...
Maciej: logistics would be difficult to change now, so we could host it
<masinter> just seems misleading to call this TC39/HTML when the topic isn't specific to HTML. I don't mind there being a meeting of W3C with TC39 which invites HTML WG members, it's just calling it a "joint meeting" that seems odd
Cynthia: the accessibility task force would be meeting on monday/tuesday, one item is to provide input for the TC39 as well
Sam: please announce that on the list
plh: TC39 is interested in some topics and is welcoming W3C groups in the room on Friday, from 10 to noon. list of topics: Support of ES5 in WebIDL, Guidance from WebIDL for Web APIs, Execution model and locking of resources, Global variables. I18n is interested in setting and managing locale in ECMAScript but is willing to meet at a different time with them.
HTML Working Group Decision Policy
Maciej: we have a draft. two phases. first
bugzilla. main difference is that we're using bugzilla as the main entry point
instead of email
... if you file a big, the editor will give you an initial feedback
... if you're not satisfied with you, you can go in the issue tracker
... escalation process
... you would make a change proposal
... we're asking for change proposal to have a summary, a rational, and
details of the proposal (spec text or edit instruction)
... if you ask the Chairs upfront, you can ask for exception to spec text or
edit instruction.
... there will be deadlines associated with the escalation process
... if no one volunteers for a change proposal, it's timeout after a month
... ditto if you volunteer but don't deliver
Maciej: this is to guarantee everyone gets full
due process.
... look at the document for details
<msporny_> +1 for this newly documented process... it's a move in the right direction.
Maciej: especially if you want to provide feedback on the specs
Manu: how does it integrate with the WHATWG editorial process?
Maciej: if you want to communicate with Ian Hickson out of band, that's ok and we won't track you, but if you want your comment to be tracked by us, use our process
Cynthia: how do one do a change proposal? in bugzilla?
<masinter> is a goal to insure that the responses to comments come from "the working group" and are agreed to?
Maciej: could be a separate document, wiki, etc. we're happy to help.
Adrian: editor response section. spec diff, we have some technical issues regarding spec diff.
<masinter> and if so... is it also a goal to insure that changes to the spec which are not in response to comments also are reviewed by the working group?
Maciej: Ian mentioned that he has multiple changes queued up, so difficult to put it the exact revision number. we'll address that by making sure somebody develops a tool, or volunteers to produce the information.
Adrian: concerned about going through the spec for changes...
Maciej: you'll go throught the logs
Adrian: it's fine if the checkin addresses more than one issue, but concerned if there is no link.
Maicje: we'll refine the process/responses as we go
Maciej: for the summary changes, do a change
proposal
... are you ok with the one month deadline?
Cynthia: I'm ok with one month
Rich: concerned about the size of changes
sometimes. not sure if it will work.
... the process is that we have an issue on standard ARIA support
... huge set of changes, then we'll have discussion on bugzilla?
<masinter> wonders if there might be a plan for reviewing the process and seeing if it is working, say, 6 weeks after the new process is instituted
Maciej: for ARIA, we need to have requests for each change related to ARIA. ie file bugzilla bugs individually.
Rich: we're willing to give it a try
<rubys> +1 to masinter's suggestion
Cynthia: fine
Steve: ditto
<mjs> masinter, to address your last question, yes, we should monitor whether the process is working, and 6 weeks from now seems like a fine time to check in
David: I just wanted to remind people of the informal accessibility workshop. Maybe folks are put off by the requirement to speak, but it doesn't have to be an academic paper. Just identify in advance what expertise and knowledge and ideas you can share with the group; we want talkers and workers
David: please sign up
Cynthia: remote participation?
David: we've got several requests, I'll check
Larry: btw, there is also Doodle: Participation in IRI specification development
Sam: any volunteer?
[none heard]
[adjourned]
[End of minutes]