/irc-logs / w3c / #xhtml / 2007-10-17 / end

Options:

# Session Start: Wed Oct 17 00:00:00 2007
# Session Ident: #xhtml
# [01:14] * Joins: sbuluf (xdjyn@200.49.140.184)
# [01:17] * Quits: sbuluf (xdjyn@200.49.140.184) (Ping timeout)
# [05:43] * Joins: sbuluf (qkbrsu@200.49.140.156)
# [05:46] * Quits: sbuluf (qkbrsu@200.49.140.156) (Ping timeout)
# [05:47] * Joins: sbuluf (vjh@200.49.140.237)
# [05:48] * Quits: sbuluf (vjh@200.49.140.237) (Quit: sbuluf)
# [13:22] * Joins: myakura (myakura@122.29.65.157)
# [15:07] * Joins: Rich (schwer@72.183.111.208)
# [15:07] * Parts: Rich (schwer@72.183.111.208)
# [15:54] * Joins: alessio (d5af0232@128.30.52.23)
# [15:59] * Joins: ShaneM (ShaneM@208.42.66.13)
# [16:00] * Joins: Tina (tina@82.182.24.153)
# [16:01] * Tina can currently not join the phone part of the meeting.
# [16:01] * ShaneM is not sure there is a meeting
# [16:01] <Tina> Have I missed a cancel message?
# [16:02] <alessio> hallo tina, shane, all...
# [16:02] <Tina> Good afternoon or similar, alessio
# [16:02] <alessio> I was asking myself the same thing
# [16:02] <alessio> (yes, afternoon :)
# [16:02] * myakura is available only via irc, as usual :(
# [16:02] <ShaneM> there was no cancel message, but neither roland nor steven are online and there was no agenda
# [16:03] <alessio> true
# [16:03] * Tina is overseeing installation of new power cabels which was REALLY due friday, and so is abit stuck phone-wise
# [16:04] <alessio> roland has sent his regrets
# [16:04] * Joins: oedipus (oedipus@70.21.186.99)
# [16:04] <ShaneM> oh. thx.
# [16:04] * Joins: markbirbeck (markbirbec@89.242.81.62)
# [16:06] * Quits: markbirbeck (markbirbec@89.242.81.62) (Quit: markbirbeck)
# [16:06] * Joins: markbirbeck (markbirbec@89.242.81.62)
# [16:06] <markbirbeck> [off] are we meeting?
# [16:06] * Tina can't say
# [16:06] * oedipus doesn't know -- no agenda, but no cancellation notice
# [16:07] <markbirbeck> Hi Tina.
# [16:07] * oedipus (gregory) says hello to the channel
# [16:07] <alessio> hallo gregory, mark
# [16:07] <oedipus> am i the only one on the bridge? that's what the bridge told me...
# [16:07] <Tina> Hello Mark.
# [16:08] <ShaneM> we dont appear to have a chair nor an agenda.
# [16:09] <oedipus> hmmmm... i wanted to plus 1 ShaneM's Role and Access attribute modules and namespaces post -- guess i'll do a "me too" on list
# [16:10] * alessio Steven is visible on Skype... trying to contact him
# [16:10] <ShaneM> hes on holiday this week I know
# [16:10] * alessio wasn't Roland?
# [16:12] * oedipus no indication yea or nay from last week's minutes
# [16:12] * myakura wonders if there are any agenda for the tpac f2f btw
# [16:14] <oedipus> couldn't find anything at the WG's page, and only a schedule of conflicts and room assignments at http://www.w3.org/2007/11/TPAC/#Schedule
# [16:16] <markbirbeck> I thought Roland said he'd be in Germany.
# [16:16] <markbirbeck> He sent a mail to the lst.
# [16:16] <alessio> "Greetings, I am at an OAGi meeting in Germany and may not be able to join the 2007-10-17 call"
# [16:17] <markbirbeck> right
# [16:17] <ShaneM> well - in the absence of eithe chair and no agenda, I think that we should just bail for the week
# [16:17] <markbirbeck> He probably forgot that Steven was away.
# [16:17] <markbirbeck> Hey...we've had meetings based on less.
# [16:17] <markbirbeck> But you're right, no chair and no agenda makes it a little tricky. :) Bye......
# [16:18] * Parts: ShaneM (ShaneM@208.42.66.13)
# [16:18] <Tina> Well, why not. Ta-ta.
# [16:18] * Parts: Tina (tina@82.182.24.153)
# [16:19] * oedipus guesses he'll go work on action items for other WGs
# [16:20] <oedipus> SteveP's draft agenda for TPAC (from july) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2007Jul/0027
# [16:21] * Quits: myakura (myakura@122.29.65.157) (Ping timeout)
# [16:42] * Joins: Rich (schwer@72.183.111.208)
# [16:42] <Rich> is there a call?
# [16:46] * Quits: Rich (schwer@72.183.111.208) (Quit: Rich)
# [16:59] * Quits: alessio (d5af0232@128.30.52.23) (Client exited)
# [17:00] * Joins: alessio (d5af0232@128.30.52.23)
# [17:12] * Quits: alessio (d5af0232@128.30.52.23) (Quit: CGI:IRC (EOF))
# [17:14] * Joins: Tina (tina@82.182.24.153)
# [17:16] <Tina> Was there supposed to be a joint XHTML/SVG/WAI meeting today?
# [17:18] <oedipus> tina: i'll try and ping RichS on that -- he was supposed to organize, and i was supposed to participate, but haven't heard anything (although having said that, i should recheck my email)
# [17:18] <Tina> oedipus: I can't find any mention of such a meeting being called.
# [17:18] <oedipus> tina: there is a PFWG meeting at noon NYC time
# [17:18] <Tina> Is this a f2f meeting?
# [17:19] <oedipus> tina: it has been discussed in both PF and ARIA subteam meetings
# [17:19] <Tina> Because the details of the meeting being posted on the xhtml mailing list is an irc one.
# [17:19] <oedipus> i think the original plan was to meet virtually and, depending upon who will be at TPAC, meet there -- let me check if RichS is in the #pf channel
# [17:20] <oedipus> nope -- i'm the only one in #pf right now
# [17:20] <Tina> Would you happen to know the exact date the call for that meeting was posted?
# [17:21] <oedipus> as far as i know it WASN'T posted -- i was supposed to be in on the call, but it appears that it was held on the sly...
# [17:22] <Tina> Ok. So if I get this correctly ... a joint XHTML, SVG and ARIA meeting was meant to be held virtually, but the XHTML group members were not informed ... ?
# [17:22] <oedipus> i'm confused, as i had been the one to push for a meeting to get rid of the aria- hack so that ARIA works today and tomorrow -- especially in XML-based languages -- that was 2 weeks ago
# [17:23] <oedipus> not only were XHTML WG members not told, neither were PF members -- including those specifically designated to participate
# [17:23] <Tina> Very interesting.
# [17:23] <oedipus> very, um, irritating
# [17:24] <oedipus> the HTML players are all attempting to force a decision ASAP -- as is FF
# [17:24] <Tina> I am tempted to use other words and phrases, but I shall refrain from doing so.
# [17:24] <oedipus> i admire your restraint (grin)
# [17:25] <oedipus> i'll push RichS on the issue at the noon PF call
# [17:25] <oedipus> i'm wary of too much horse-trading being conducted behind closed doors
# [17:25] * Tina will calmly ask for a reference to the meeting call.
# [17:26] <oedipus> ok, you're the "good cop" and i'm the "bad cop" -- that's how it usually shakes out in these situations!
# [17:26] <oedipus> http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17-aria-minutes.html
# [17:26] * Tina nods, "Just reading those ... "
# [17:27] <oedipus> not a very open attitude from the HTML dev reps, but that's become par for the course...
# [17:28] * oedipus plans on some "discrete" inquiries vis a vis the meeting without announcement
# [17:30] * oedipus notes AaronL's statement: Aaron: with a - you can can trigger dynamic updates but without (:) you can
# [17:30] <oedipus> ... you have to work around IE problems when you develop cross-browser script
# [17:30] <oedipus> ... you don't get anything automatically and people describe what they are doing.
# [17:30] <oedipus> ... aria does not drive the behavior
# [17:30] * Tina notes comments such as " the people who are implementing svg tiny would be a problem."
# [17:31] <oedipus> jon gunderson of the university of illinois is working on some IE ARIA demos, as is charles chen, dev of FireVox
# [17:31] * oedipus notes that its too bad "the people" weren't informed of the meeting being held in their names...
# [17:32] <Tina> Ok. This, to me, is a problem in itself.
# [17:32] <oedipus> me too...
# [17:32] <Tina> I am certainly not going to back any sort of decision made in a meeting of that kind.
# [17:32] <oedipus> so are remarks such as: <hsivonen> (I don't really believe in Web language versioning
# [17:33] <oedipus> i'll make an inquiry on the PF list about the meeting and innocently raise the issue of not pre-publicizing the meeting so that there could be broader representation
# [17:34] <oedipus> tina: do you have member access?
# [17:34] <Tina> oedipus: to W3C internals? Yes.
# [17:34] <oedipus> the only thing i could find in the PF archives is an after-the-fact post: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-wai-pf/2007OctDec/0052.html
# [17:35] <oedipus> i'm going to reply to the reply from the chair AlG on list
# [17:36] <oedipus> there was no one in the XHTML2 WG that had been informed (save, apparently, for StevenP, but he's unavailable for meetings this week, right?)
# [17:37] <Tina> From a methodology point of view, this is unfortunate. The agreements made during that meeting cannot be considered valid for the XHTML WG. From what I could see, Steven was supposed to be there. He was ALSO supposed to chair a meeting here today.
# [17:37] <oedipus> yeah...
# [17:37] <Tina> However ... who is "Rich"?
# [17:38] <oedipus> Richard Schwerdtfeger (of IBM) an editor of XHTML Roles Module and ARIA
# [17:38] <Tina> The log created is sadly lacking. There are only first names in the log. Is that 'their' Rich, or 'our' Rich?
# [17:38] <oedipus> Richard Schwerdtfeger belongs to both the XHTML2 WG and the PF WG
# [17:38] <Tina> So atleast one of 'our' people were there.
# [17:39] <oedipus> technically, yes, but hardly a meeting of disinterested parties
# [17:40] <oedipus> everyone attending has a stake in the issues discussed from a developmental/proprietary point-of-view, save for DougS (staff contact for SVG, CDF and WebAPI)
# [17:40] <Tina> I'm wondering why /one/, or possibly /two/, XHTML WG members were invited, but not the rest of us. Personally I joined the WG for the sole reason of working accessibility, and have /quite/ some interest.
# [17:41] <oedipus> same here -- i wanted to be "present at the creation" rather than criticizing and nitpicking from the outside -- besides, working within a group is the only way to ensure that accessibility issues will be addressed
# [17:41] * Tina nods, "I might not agree with the way things are going, but I would rather be present to disagree than left to rot, figuratively speaking"
# [17:42] <Tina> Wait ... there was a direct W3C representative included?
# [17:42] <oedipus> doug -- he's the staff contact for SVG
# [17:43] <oedipus> but he was an invitee, not a coordinator
# [17:44] <oedipus> invited, i should add, because he kept asking the same questions on multiple lists and was unsatisfied with non-answers
# [17:44] <oedipus> as i understand the dynamics of the situation...
# [17:44] * Tina blinks
# [17:44] <Tina> May I paste something, or are you reading the XHTML WG list?
# [17:45] <oedipus> go ahead
# [17:45] <Tina> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:36:06 +0200, Mark Birbeck
# [17:45] <Tina> <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com> wrote:
# [17:45] <Tina> > Perhaps you could post that 'reasonable explanation' when you have a
# [17:45] <Tina> > moment, or alternatively give the meeting a different title, and not
# [17:45] <Tina> > imply that the XHTML WG was included.
# [17:45] <Tina> There's no XHTML WG and therefore no such implication, as far as I can
# [17:46] <Tina> tell.
# [17:46] <Tina> --
# [17:46] <Tina> Anne van Kesteren
# [17:46] <oedipus> that's become the mantra of a very vocal faction of the HTML WG, mostly by those involved in the WHAT WG's drafting of HTML5 before submission to W3C
# [17:47] <oedipus> the attitude seems to be -- let XML take care of XML -- we're taking care of "reality"
# [17:47] <Tina> Possibly, but posting "there is no XHTML WG" to the XHTML WG mailing list is pushing it abit too far.
# [17:48] <oedipus> anne van k is on the joint forms task force (along with me and maciej s of apple) as HTML WG participants
# [17:49] * Tina nods, "I have been insulted before by Mr. van Kesteren. But this is a serious mailing-list, not a playground"
# [17:51] <oedipus> there is a faction that simply doesn't care -- all they wanted was the imprimatur of the W3C (and, by implication, those other 3 magical letters, TBL) on a "done deal" -- the editor has been telling HTML WG members that he has an obligation to clearing 2 years' worth of feedback from the what wg list before turning his attention to public-html raised issues
# [17:51] <Tina> It would see that the assumption is that "this was a meeting of the ARIA WG with invited XHTML people"
# [17:52] <oedipus> the only "XHTML people" there was RichS, as far as i can tell
# [17:53] * Tina nods
# [17:53] <Tina> I am interpreting van Kesteren's mail as to mean, however, that this wasn't a joint XHTML/SVG/ARIA WG meeting.
# [17:54] <oedipus> not at all -- it is appears to be a meeting to satisfy the "ARIA proposal" at http://simon.html5.org/specs/aria-proposal
# [17:56] * oedipus points tina to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-wai-pf/2007OctDec/0018.html
# [17:56] <Tina> All right. So Rich privately invited Steven to join him with the SVG and ARIA groups for their official ARIA WG meeting?
# [17:56] <oedipus> apparently so
# [17:56] <Tina> Can /you/ see the mail Rich claim to have sent to the XHTML WG?
# [17:57] <oedipus> from the minutes cited above: "john and marc, aaron, gregory rich will caucus on this and report
# [17:57] <oedipus> no, and nothing to PF except for an after-the-fact pointer to minutes
# [17:57] * oedipus notes that this isn't the first time a side-meeting on ARIA in HTML has been held on the sly without prior notification
# [17:58] <oedipus> trying to get a post to PF before the telecon starts in 3 minutes...
# [17:59] <Tina> This is from Rich: "> I am trying to schedule another meeting which includes Steven. You and
# [17:59] <Tina> > Shane are both welcome."
# [17:59] <Tina> ... to the XHTML 2 WG.
# [17:59] <Tina> I assume I am *not* welcome.
# [18:00] <oedipus> that goes for me, too, it appears...
# [18:00] * Tina nods
# [18:01] <oedipus> i'll CC you on my post to PF
# [18:01] <Tina> Thank you.
# [18:01] <Tina> The question is simply whether to take the dishes public.
# [18:02] <oedipus> hell, i'm just going to CC the xhtml2 list
# [18:05] <oedipus> just posted to PF and XHTML2 lists
# [18:05] <oedipus> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2007Oct/0071.html
# [18:06] * oedipus is dialing into PF call now
# [18:07] <Tina> Good luck
# [18:07] <oedipus> thanks!
# [18:08] <Tina> In the meantime I'll see if I can manage to convince myself that the posted log *doesn't* look like a formal joint meeting.
# [18:13] <oedipus> good luck -- if you succeed englighten me!
# [18:31] <oedipus> teleconference
# [18:31] <oedipus> teleconference
# [18:31] * oedipus it is a telecon
# [18:32] <Tina> Enlighten me, if you can ... is Rich 'leader' or 'co-chair' of this WG?
# [18:36] <oedipus> regularly scheduled telecon
# [18:36] <oedipus> regularly scheduled telecon
# [18:36] <oedipus> regularly scheduled telecon
# [18:52] <oedipus> no, a regular telecon
# [19:15] * oedipus wonders why can't i interact with this channel anymore?
# [19:23] <oedipus> tina: sre you still around?
# [19:26] <Tina> Still around
# [19:27] <oedipus> no, a regularly scheduled telecon
# [19:31] <Tina> oedipus: not sure I understand ... ?
# [20:29] * Joins: anne (annevk@81.68.67.12)
# [20:29] * Parts: anne (annevk@81.68.67.12)
# [21:10] * Quits: markbirbeck (markbirbec@89.242.81.62) (Quit: markbirbeck)
# [21:41] <oedipus> tina: the buffer didn't keep up with the channel which is why there is a lot of noise from me -- the PFWG (http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group) has a regularly scheduled teleconference wednesdays at noon MIT time
# [21:57] * Parts: oedipus (oedipus@70.21.186.99)
# [22:13] * Joins: ShaneM (ShaneM@208.42.66.13)
# [23:14] <Tina> Around?
# [23:16] <ShaneM> yes
# [23:16] * Tina nods, "I'm curious as to your thoughts of today's events?"
# [23:16] <ShaneM> svg nonsense? much ado about nothing
# [23:16] <ShaneM> stvene dropped the ball.
# [23:17] <Tina> Hm.
# [23:19] <Tina> I admit to finding it more serious than that, both the actual dropping of the ball, and Rich's response.
# [23:20] <ShaneM> there was a long private discussion about the situation that steven and I were in on. mark too I think. tv raman. all sorts of people
# [23:20] <ShaneM> it was very much "w3c is fucked up how can we help fix this?"
# [23:21] <ShaneM> Rick wanted to set up a con call so the parties could have a meeting of the minds. I thought that was a fine idea as long as it shut up the "we hate scoped attribute values" people. I know you are one of those people, but whatever.
# [23:21] <ShaneM> Rich often does not think before he types.
# [23:21] <Tina> Well ... it certainly won't help the W3C with the way this is handled - nor is inviting, publically, a subset of people.
# [23:21] <ShaneM> that was the stupidest thing he has done in ages.
# [23:22] <ShaneM> people have side meetings all the time to work things out. its smart. making it a semi-official meeting was dumb
# [23:22] <Tina> Yes, well, he might need to start doing that. I'm rather disappointed, I shall admit. As I mentioned before I started - time has been frightfully short for me, but while I don't begrudge you or Mark an invitation ... the phrasing was disgusting.
# [23:23] <ShaneM> quite
# [23:23] <ShaneM> this whole aria proposal has really irritated me. and trying to appease these worthless html5 people makes me crazy
# [23:23] * Tina nods
# [23:23] <ShaneM> attribute names with hyphens in them? honestly
# [23:24] <Tina> As you know, I am ... not happy with the entire paradigm shift vs. role, but personally I'd much rather disagree *in* a meeting than afterwards being scolded for not speaking up.
# [23:24] <ShaneM> oh yeah - that's precious
# [23:24] <Tina> I spoke with Gregory earlier.
# [23:25] <ShaneM> I think someone out there has started to grok my "pax xhtml" strategy unfortunately. the "export our semantics with our namespace and take over the world" thing.
# [23:25] <Tina> We both feel - although I shall of course not speak for him - that after Rich's post to the XHTML WG list where he says, quote, "You and Shane are both welcome" to Mark ... well. I must assume I am *not*.
# [23:26] <ShaneM> wow. I didn't read it that way, but I wasn't you of course
# [23:26] <Tina> "I am trying to schedule another meeting which includes Steven. You and
# [23:26] <Tina> Shane are both welcome."
# [23:26] <Tina> CAN it be read differently?
# [23:27] <ShaneM> btw our discussion hjere is being publically logged. not that I mind, but I was not sure you knew that
# [23:27] <Tina> I am more than willing to, publically, ask whether my exclusion is due to my views on role.
# [23:28] <ShaneM> I doubt it
# Session Close: Thu Oct 18 00:00:00 2007

The end :)