HTML Weekly Teleconference

ACTION items

Sam: none

Items Closing This Week

Sam: None

Task Force Reports

Sam: a11y tf?

Janina: waiting on a decision from the Director on longdesc
... discussion on the alt document
... if the decision goes our way, we would rather publish a hearbeat but not a final one
... to do more editing on it
... so changes in the expected status
... we'll need the approval from PF on the heartbeat

<tantek_> supports publishing heartbeat.

Janina: also some discussion around footnotes in HTML.next
... to make it a more robust experience for users
... looking at the use cases out of the digital publishing
... and bank requirements
... so potential item for the f2f
... with the dig pub folks
... to look at the concerns and use cases

plh: CSS is also interested in the topic
... make sure David Cramer at the minimum is in the room

Janina: ok

Sam: media tf?

Paul: continues to work on EME and MSE CR
... not a lot of progress to report
... around 20 EME bugs
... small progress

Plh: progress on the test suite on MSE?

Paul: no recent progress. expect to have an update in October
... getting people attention in my company is difficult

Plh: it's a general problem

Paul: agreed. transition from spec writers to testers isn't happening as much

Sam: some OS projects won't accept patches without tests

Paul: could be considered hostile to push for that
... I'm in the process the media task force their plans for the f2f meeting
... some opportunities for joint meeting between svg, pf, css, html
... so need for more progress for the logitics

<tantek> regrets for TPAC HTMLWG f2f - will be in AB/AC meeting. Will try to monitor on IRC.

Sam: canvas tf?
... next meeting is tomorrow

Paul: Mark reported that Rich has a wiki for test cases
... is that new?

Sam: was done 3 weeks ago. will send a link.

Other Business

Sam: DOM4?

<tantek> or rather, *may* I add

PLh: Robin is looking at https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/1227
... not done yet
... reviewed treewalker tests: https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/1235

PLh: spec got modified following one of my comment
... not substantive
... hope to be done by end of this week

Sam: longdesc cr. already covered
... HTML WG f2f and TPAC
... see agenda in the wiki
... more work is needed
... anything else?

Tantek: link to dated snapshot of WHATWG URL http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2014Sep/0061.html
... believe it would satisfy the requirements
... without having to do a copy in webapps
... think it's a reasonnable compromise
... interested in making it happened
... that's my proposal

Sam: comments on the title used

Tantek: didn't catch the source
... will look into it to use a short title

<tantek> plh: source: https://whatwg.org/specs/url/2014-07-30/

Paul: looking for guidance: the Director looked at this and didn't pick that choice
... the doc is in the AC now
... not sure the html wg has control

Tantek: wanted to get input from the html wg

Paul: agreed...

Sam: at the moment, the response is mixed
... but keep trying to resolve it
... I don't think we'll get consensus at the group level
... seems like a w3c level issue

Tantek: the announcement of the PR was mentioning the change, thus my email

Paul: yes, but the responsibility for producing a spec for URL is in webapps
... in the PR, getting that doc updated is in the hand
... the AC decided on the advice of the team to put that in webapps

Tantek: sure, but I'm commenting on the reference

Paul: ok, but the CR didn't have it the reference
... the PR points to /TR/url/
... it says "we're expecting that ref to be updated"
... so webapps would update that

Tantek: yes, but I'm asking a different link

http://w3c.github.io/test-results/url/less-than-2.html

<paulc> plh: One of the items that I did was to run the URL test suite

http://w3c.github.io/test-results/url/all.html

<paulc> ... Safari results are generated but not yet in these results

<paulc> ... I have to say that the results of the test suite is pretty disappointing

<paulc> ... Whatever we reference is sub-optimal from a technical position. The problem is more poltical.

Sam: if Tantek query would have come up with consensus, that would be useful input to w3c
... and the discussion isn't over
... so don't stop having the discussion with other groups as well (AC, webapps)

Paul: and the TAG

<rubys> http://www.w3.org/2014/06/webapps-charter.html "The WebApps WG will ask the Technical Architecture Group to

<rubys> review some set of its specifications and will help, through a

<rubys> joint task force, the development of the URL specification

<rubys> and the Packaging on the Web specification."

Plh: is the thread on after 5 going anywhere?

Sam: not clear yet

Plh: part of the problem on after 5 is where to we want to be a year from now between html 5.0, and future
... we're about to publish a rec that won't be changed
... so I asked Robin to try to be get it right
... including for search engines

Paul: are you following some principles?

<Eliot> Need to drop off. Apologies.

PlH; no, just trying not to miss an opportunity

Plh: from the point of view of search engines, what should I get if I type html or html5?

Sam: depends on the audience

<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask about shortnames

<rubys> more background on the audience comment: some want the latest/experimental version; others want a stable/proven version

shane: it's not a new pb. shouldn't we have a general solution?

plh: we'd like one but don't have one yet

paul: is there enough additional aspect today that were touched on in the thread?
... maybe this should be a separate thread

plh: will look into creating a separate one potentially

Next meeting

Sam: scribe?
... Paul will chair

Shane: I'll scribe

[adjourned]