Paul: let's switch to other business
Paul: I took an action item to create a bugzilla component for it
<scribe> ACTION: Paul to create a bugzilla component for the Adaptive Image Element Proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/20-html-wg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-221 - Create a bugzilla component for the Adaptive Image Element Proposal [on Paul Cotton - due 2012-09-27].
Paul: ongoing thread about
mailing lists
... we have people on both sides
... the technical discussion aren't proceeding in the
meantime
Maciej: I would suggest a
preference poll to figure this out
... this is not substantive
[no objection to the idea]
<scribe> ACTION: Maciej to create a preference poll for the appcache mailing list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/20-html-wg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-222 - Create a preference poll for the appcache mailing list [on Maciej Stachowiak - due 2012-09-27].
Paul: can Ted or someone else give a status?
Ted: additional discussion in
bugzilla. last spec edit was to put the new wording as of
Thursday last week.
... I don't think we've gone to a conclusion on how to tweak
the wording further
Paul: do we have outstanding
bugs?
... are we moving towards consensus?
Ted: when I made the edit on
Thursday I called for people to file bugs on that text
... didn't see any coming so far
Janina: apologizes if I didn't
catch you wanted additional bugs for that
... I'm happy to do that and will do today
... I think it's one bug
... we have two use cases and we need the language to support
them
Paul: it might be useful to
follow up in email as well
... is the bugzilla message good enough?
Ted: getting as many people
involved sounds good to me
... so bugs and email is fine
Paul: sent a reminder
... we received a request for a coordination meeting
... from MLW-LT
... we'll start building some sort of agenda
<paulc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0255.html
Paul: I'll remind people that
there is a daily meeting fee, with exceptions for the TPAC
sponsors
... fee increase after a day in October. It triples!
--> http://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2012 Schedule
http://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2012/SessionIdeas
put your proposals for TP breakout sessions there
Paul: giving the proposed plan, wasn't sure what to do.
Janina: the consensus poll has
continued to draw a traffic on the list
... the ongoing discussion isn't raising new information
... it's a fruitful discussion though
... not sure if it's important conversation
... one of the key contributors is upset by the proposed
plan
... I support the new approach mindful of the fact that it
delays the resolution further
Paul: maybe the best thing to do
is to skip over this for the moment
... and talk about the proposed plan
Judy: the consensus poll was done
on schedule and the results were summarized
... it supported the earlier consensus
... there is a discussion going on with some good give and
take
<janina> Text Subteam minutes at:
Judy: given the proposed plan, it makes sense to figure out how the discussion would be moving from here
<janina> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Sep/0282.html
Judy: but the action was complete and reported
<rubys> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0243.html
--> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0243.html proposed plan
<rubys> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html
<rubys> http://www.w3.org/QA/2012/09/getting_html5_to_recommendatio.html
Sam: there is a plan, a blog
entry...
... the plan emphasizes modularity. gives 2014 for 5.0 and 2016
for 5.1
... looking for a call for consensus when the major comments
die down
<rubys> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0269.html
Sam: there is indeed at least one
bug in the plan since pubdate is not in the spec
... we'll be updating the plan based on feedback
... for 185, the proposed plan says we retain pubdate but the
spec doesn't have it. it's a bug in the plan.
<rubys> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0284.html
Sam: we got input from Steve that
it would prefer that the Techniques for providing useful text
alternatives remains in the HTML WG
... we'll respect the wish from the editor
Judy: the comment was that the location was a concern for now
Janina: the language in section
4.8 is still a concern for Steve
... 4.8 is a problem for a11y
Paul: we talked about this and
didn't put anything in the plan since it talks about open
issues
... but we understand it's an important concern
... maybe it would be better if we can identify how we plan to
process this concern
Janina: indeed, we're still trying to figure out the best process path
Judy: [corrected minutes]
... for issue 30, the summary of the feedback on the decision
got truncated in the minutes of the html a11y tf
... will need to recreate that
<rubys> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0283.html
Sam: concern regarding validation. we do believe that Mike will be responsive to adding stuff in the w3c validator
<rubys> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0282.html
Sam: if there is a problem with
that, we should discuss further
... Steve created a new spec on how to resolve the hgroup
issue
<Judy> s/Judy: for now/Judy: the comment was that the location was a concern for now/
Sam: he would prefer we make change the main spec to make it easier for someone to create an extension spec for hgroup
Paul: the first one requires a correction. second requires a description about section 4.8 and alt techniques. third one needs more discussion. the validator may cause a plan update.
Sam: it sounds that people are ok to leave the alt techniques in the html wg for now
Paul: we still need to deal with the underlying concern
sam: agreed
Paul: any discussion in PF?
Janina: an topic is the importance of messaging around this and the fact that extensions are first class citizen in the environment
<rubys> tf minutes: http://www.w3.org/2012/09/20-html-a11y-minutes.html
Paul: one question regarding the
schedule for the CR exit criteria and the CfC for the plan
itself
... we don't have a firm plan
... and people are wondering how long they have to absorbe the
plan and give feedback
Maciej: imho, we could have a CfC
on the CR exit criteria next week.
... for the plan itself, we need to let it go further for
now
Paul: some people in the html a11y didn't pay attention to the CR exit criteria
<rubys> exit criteria: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0215.html
Judy: the update on the CR exit
criteria didn't go to the tf
... concern about allowing the vertical stacks
<JF> +1 to Judy's comment
Judy: I do believe that Maciej's update did take this into account
Paul: if there is feedback friom the a11y tf, we might delay the cfc for the cr exit criteria
Maciej: indeed, if we get new feedback, we'll wait
<adrianba> +1
Maciej: I like that the plan results in shipping soon
Paul: Maciej is on deck to
chair
... anyone interested in scribing?
... I'm at risk for next week
[adjourned]