/irc-logs / w3c / #html-wg / 2009-05-21 / end

Options:

  1. # Session Start: Thu May 21 00:00:00 2009
  2. # Session Ident: #html-wg
  3. # [00:03] <DanC> aha! with the addition of a dummy org, it's valid
  4. # [00:04] * Joins: aroben_ (aroben@131.107.167.4)
  5. # [00:10] * Quits: tlr (tlr@128.30.52.30) (Quit: tlr)
  6. # [00:12] * Joins: Marcos (Marcos@84.215.160.79)
  7. # [00:41] * Joins: aroben__ (aroben@17.151.111.221)
  8. # [00:43] * Quits: aroben_ (aroben@131.107.167.4) (Ping timeout)
  9. # [00:44] * Joins: aroben (aroben@17.151.111.239)
  10. # [00:45] * Quits: aroben__ (aroben@17.151.111.221) (Ping timeout)
  11. # [00:46] * Quits: Marcos (Marcos@84.215.160.79) (Quit: Marcos)
  12. # [00:48] * Joins: Marcos (Marcos@84.215.160.79)
  13. # [00:53] * Quits: Marcos (Marcos@84.215.160.79) (Quit: Marcos)
  14. # [00:57] * Quits: ChrisWilson (cwilso@131.107.0.102) (Ping timeout)
  15. # [01:03] * Joins: ChrisWilson (cwilso@131.107.0.106)
  16. # [01:21] * Quits: myakura (myakura@114.150.90.87) (Quit: Leaving...)
  17. # [01:50] * Parts: billmason (bmason@69.30.57.143)
  18. # [02:08] * Quits: tH (Rob@129.11.83.229) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.84-rdmsoft [XULRunner 1.9.0.1/2008072406])
  19. # [02:13] * Joins: heycam` (cam@130.194.73.110)
  20. # [02:22] * Quits: heycam (cam@124.168.66.131) (Client exited)
  21. # [02:22] * heycam` is now known as heycam
  22. # [02:42] * Quits: gsnedders (gsnedders@86.136.52.180) (Ping timeout)
  23. # [02:43] * Joins: gsnedders (gsnedders@86.136.53.182)
  24. # [03:44] * Joins: gavin (gavin@99.226.207.11)
  25. # [04:18] * Quits: aroben (aroben@17.151.111.239) (Connection reset by peer)
  26. # [05:46] * Quits: gavin (gavin@99.226.207.11) (Ping timeout)
  27. # [05:51] * Joins: gavin (gavin@99.226.207.11)
  28. # [07:27] * Joins: aroben (aroben@72.254.114.146)
  29. # [07:41] * Joins: tlr (tlr@128.30.52.30)
  30. # [08:55] * Quits: aroben (aroben@72.254.114.146) (Connection reset by peer)
  31. # [09:23] * Quits: gavin (gavin@99.226.207.11) (Connection reset by peer)
  32. # [09:24] * Joins: gavin (gavin@99.226.207.11)
  33. # [09:32] * Quits: gavin (gavin@99.226.207.11) (Connection reset by peer)
  34. # [09:33] * Joins: gavin (gavin@99.226.207.11)
  35. # [10:00] * Quits: heycam (cam@130.194.73.110) (Quit: bye)
  36. # [10:11] <pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 6937] New: BibTeX author and editor don't fit DRY HTML <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009May/0008.html>
  37. # [10:34] * Quits: jwatt (roslea@94.209.103.175) (Client exited)
  38. # [11:13] * Joins: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38)
  39. # [11:32] * Quits: Shunsuke (Shunsuke@114.166.101.85) (Ping timeout)
  40. # [11:33] * Joins: Shunsuke (Shunsuke@114.166.101.85)
  41. # [11:46] * Joins: otrops (otrops@78.105.10.190)
  42. # [11:58] * Joins: tH (Rob@129.11.83.229)
  43. # [12:41] * Joins: myakura (myakura@114.150.90.87)
  44. # [12:52] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@69.140.1.234)
  45. # [13:17] * Joins: heycam (cam@124.168.66.131)
  46. # [14:30] * Joins: maddiin (mc@87.185.203.121)
  47. # [14:53] * Joins: Julian (chatzilla@217.91.35.233)
  48. # [15:31] * Quits: Shunsuke (Shunsuke@114.166.101.85) (Ping timeout)
  49. # [15:49] * Joins: Shunsuke (Shunsuke@114.166.101.85)
  50. # [16:23] * Quits: maddiin (mc@87.185.203.121) (Quit: maddiin)
  51. # [16:31] * Joins: annevk (opera@94.210.210.44)
  52. # [16:54] * Parts: annevk (opera@94.210.210.44)
  53. # [17:06] * Quits: Julian (chatzilla@217.91.35.233) (Ping timeout)
  54. # [17:10] * Joins: Julian (chatzilla@217.91.35.233)
  55. # [17:11] * anne wonders what http://www.w3.org/mid/000101c9da23$bc4a8280$34df8780$@org is supposed to mean
  56. # [17:11] <pimpbot> Title: "prior to Last Call" from Larry Masinter on 2009-05-21 (public-html@w3.org from May 2009) (at www.w3.org)
  57. # [17:11] <anne> Julian, in your email you switched rel and profile at one point
  58. # [17:15] <Julian> Anne, will check...
  59. # [17:28] * Quits: gsnedders (gsnedders@86.136.53.182) (Ping timeout)
  60. # [17:28] * Joins: gsnedders (gsnedders@86.136.53.182)
  61. # [17:31] <gsnedders> Julian: IIRC (w3.org isn't loading for me now) erratum of existing HTML specifications falls with the XHTML2 WG
  62. # [17:32] <anne> not really
  63. # [17:33] <anne> I don't think HTML4 is in scope of any group at this point
  64. # [17:34] <Julian> Agreed: I don't see it in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/XHTML2-WG-charter either.
  65. # [17:34] <pimpbot> Title: XHTML2 Working Group (at www.w3.org)
  66. # [17:34] <Julian> This sucks.
  67. # [17:34] <anne> HTML4 too so it doesn't really matter :p
  68. # [17:35] <Julian> One more reason to merge the WGs.
  69. # [17:35] <anne> merging would not suddenly put HTML4 in scope
  70. # [17:36] <Philip> It would force rechartering, and rechartering could put it in scope
  71. # [17:36] <anne> maybe
  72. # [17:37] <anne> merging would definitely be interesting
  73. # [17:38] <Philip> Julian: Would publishing errata for HTML 4.01 be easier than convincing implementors that HTML 4.01 is broken and should be ignored and they should implement the correct (but not specified) behaviour instead?
  74. # [17:40] <Julian> My concern is that validation tools flag correct behavior as a bug; so people who case about validity either stop caring, or change their markup to something worse.
  75. # [17:40] <Julian> This is an example of bad validator messages being harmful in practice.
  76. # [17:41] <Philip> Ah
  77. # [17:41] <Philip> Would publishing errata for HTML 4.01 be easier than convincing validator implementors that HTML 4.01 is broken and should be ignored and they should implement the correct (but not specified) behaviour instead?
  78. # [17:41] <Julian> The issue was pointed out by Björn, who, as usually, is right in that the W3C should fix their specs when they know they're broken.
  79. # [17:41] <Julian> Ok, go convince Björn. Good luck :-)
  80. # [17:42] <Philip> I suppose that's an implicit answer to my question :-)
  81. # [17:43] * gsnedders thinks you could probably argue that HTML 5 is mainly fixing problems with HTML 4, so it is the errata
  82. # [17:44] <Julian> gsnedders, that sounds like you support having link/@profile im HTML5.
  83. # [17:44] <Julian> Philip, btw, THANKS a lot for getting started the work on RDFa-in-HTML!
  84. # [17:44] <Philip> The existence of @profile could be considered a bug in HTML 4 that is now being fixed :-)
  85. # [17:45] <Philip> Julian: Well, I haven't really done anything useful on it yet :-p
  86. # [17:46] * Joins: LeifHS (s@84.208.110.159)
  87. # [17:55] <gsnedders> Philip: In a lot of ways, for the sake of sanity in text/html, I'd rather CURIEs were non-conforming
  88. # [17:57] <Philip> gsnedders: Is that needed for sanity in text/html more than it's needed in application/xhtml+xml? (assuming it wasn't using xmlns:*)
  89. # [17:57] <gsnedders> Philip: Well, @xmlns doesn't otherwise exist in HTML
  90. # [17:58] <hober> Seems to me like CURIEs lack sanity in any media type...
  91. # [17:59] * Julian wishes that people understand that it simply is not true that everybody thinks prefixes are bad
  92. # [18:00] * Joins: masinter (user@76.102.104.162)
  93. # [18:00] <gsnedders> I think the main problem is @xmlns has different meanings in text/html and XML
  94. # [18:00] <anne> oh, it was a holiday today
  95. # [18:00] <Dashiva> Yeah
  96. # [18:00] <anne> in norway too?
  97. # [18:00] <Dashiva> The holiday that gets everyone by surprise
  98. # [18:01] <anne> i guess i won't have to work tomorrow then
  99. # [18:01] * Joins: Zakim (rrs-bridgg@128.30.52.30)
  100. # [18:01] * Joins: rubys (rubys@75.182.92.38)
  101. # [18:01] <Dashiva> "Why are all the stores closed? I need food!"
  102. # [18:01] * anne is flexible
  103. # [18:01] <dsinger_> zakim, who is here?
  104. # [18:01] <Zakim> sorry, dsinger_, I don't know what conference this is
  105. # [18:01] <Zakim> On IRC I see rubys, Zakim, masinter, LeifHS, gsnedders, Julian, Shunsuke, heycam, dbaron, myakura, tH, otrops, ROBOd, gavin, tlr, ChrisWilson, karl, takkaria, shepazu, anne,
  106. # [18:01] <Zakim> ... dsinger_, DanC, pimpbot, ed_work, Dashiva, xover, Hixie, theanxy, gavin_, krijnh, sryo, jmb, trackbot, drry, jgraham, hober, hsivonen, Philip, deltab, inimino, Yudai
  107. # [18:01] <dsinger_> zakim, this is html
  108. # [18:01] <Zakim> ok, dsinger_; that matches HTML_WG()12:00PM
  109. # [18:01] <Julian> Zakim, mute me
  110. # [18:01] <Zakim> Julian_Reschke should now be muted
  111. # [18:01] <anne> yeah, I noticed when I was at the post office earlier, which was closed
  112. # [18:01] <dsinger_> zakim, who is here?
  113. # [18:01] <Zakim> On the phone I see Cynthia_Shelly, [Apple], Julian_Reschke (muted)
  114. # [18:01] <Dashiva> 40 days after easter
  115. # [18:01] <Zakim> On IRC I see rubys, Zakim, masinter, LeifHS, gsnedders, Julian, Shunsuke, heycam, dbaron, myakura, tH, otrops, ROBOd, gavin, tlr, ChrisWilson, karl, takkaria, shepazu, anne,
  116. # [18:01] <anne> along with all the other shops except for the supermarket
  117. # [18:01] <Dashiva> I think
  118. # [18:01] <Zakim> ... dsinger_, DanC, pimpbot, ed_work, Dashiva, xover, Hixie, theanxy, gavin_, krijnh, sryo, jmb, trackbot, drry, jgraham, hober, hsivonen, Philip, deltab, inimino, Yudai
  119. # [18:01] <dsinger_> zakim, [apple] has dsinger
  120. # [18:01] <Zakim> +dsinger; got it
  121. # [18:02] * dsinger_ is now known as dsinger
  122. # [18:02] <anne> Dashiva, yeah, Hemelvaart we call it here
  123. # [18:02] <Zakim> +Sam
  124. # [18:02] <Dashiva> Himmelfart, same thing it seems :)
  125. # [18:02] <Julian> "Himmelfahrt" over here
  126. # [18:02] <Zakim> +Masinter
  127. # [18:02] <dsinger> ascension day
  128. # [18:03] * Joins: smedero (smedero@66.114.145.154)
  129. # [18:03] <rubys> zakim, who is on the call?
  130. # [18:03] <Zakim> On the phone I see Cynthia_Shelly, [Apple], Julian_Reschke (muted), Sam, Masinter
  131. # [18:03] <Zakim> [Apple] has dsinger
  132. # [18:03] * anne will be there in a sec
  133. # [18:03] * shepazu Zakim, call shepazu
  134. # [18:03] * Zakim ok, shepazu; the call is being made
  135. # [18:03] <Zakim> +Shepazu
  136. # [18:03] <Zakim> +Laura
  137. # [18:04] * Joins: annevk (opera@94.210.210.44)
  138. # [18:04] <annevk> Zakim, passcode?
  139. # [18:04] <Zakim> the conference code is 4865 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), annevk
  140. # [18:04] <Zakim> +??P17
  141. # [18:04] <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
  142. # [18:04] <annevk> Zakim, ??P17 is annevk
  143. # [18:04] <Zakim> +annevk; got it
  144. # [18:05] <Zakim> + +1.503.712.aaaa
  145. # [18:05] * annevk I think
  146. # [18:05] <rubys> zakim, pick a scribe
  147. # [18:05] <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Masinter
  148. # [18:05] * annevk nominates Julian!
  149. # [18:05] <rubys> zakim, pick a scribe
  150. # [18:05] <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Masinter
  151. # [18:05] * Julian has got no headset, nor speakerphone
  152. # [18:05] * annevk ah
  153. # [18:05] * tlr is now known as tlr-later
  154. # [18:05] * Julian scribed recently .-9
  155. # [18:06] * annevk can do it then
  156. # [18:06] <annevk> scribenick: annevk
  157. # [18:06] * Julian thanks Anne
  158. # [18:06] * annevk notes the scribe is on mute
  159. # [18:06] * DanC Zakim, call DanC-work
  160. # [18:06] * Zakim ok, DanC; the call is being made
  161. # [18:06] <Zakim> +DanC
  162. # [18:06] <rubys> issue-35, action-114
  163. # [18:06] * DanC Zakim, mute me
  164. # [18:06] * Zakim DanC should now be muted
  165. # [18:06] <annevk> ISSUE-35?
  166. # [18:06] * trackbot getting information on ISSUE-35
  167. # [18:06] <trackbot> ISSUE-35 -- Need to define processing requirements for aria states and properties when used in html -- OPEN
  168. # [18:06] <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/35
  169. # [18:06] <pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-35 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
  170. # [18:06] * DanC is cleaning up after a dog mess...
  171. # [18:07] <Zakim> + +1.484.802.aabb
  172. # [18:07] <annevk> Topic: Processing requirements for ARIA
  173. # [18:07] <smedero> Zakim, +1.484.802.aabb is me
  174. # [18:07] <Zakim> +smedero; got it
  175. # [18:07] * Parts: dbaron (dbaron@69.140.1.234) (8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.)
  176. # [18:07] <annevk> Cynthia: The goal is to have a WD by June 8
  177. # [18:07] <annevk> Cynthia: By the end of May to have a document that describes the existing mappings from HTML
  178. # [18:07] <annevk> Cynthia: From there we want to figure out what is missing.
  179. # [18:08] <annevk> Cynthia: Two things: implementation guidelines + mappings
  180. # [18:08] <annevk> Cynthia: CR by the end of the year if we decide to go normative
  181. # [18:08] <annevk> Cynthia: aggressive schedule but we think it is possible
  182. # [18:08] <annevk> SR: report progress again in a couple of weeks?
  183. # [18:08] <annevk> Cynthia: June 11 is ok
  184. # [18:09] <Julian> Zakim, unmute me
  185. # [18:09] <Zakim> Julian_Reschke should no longer be muted
  186. # [18:09] <annevk> ISSUE-54?
  187. # [18:09] * trackbot getting information on ISSUE-54
  188. # [18:09] <trackbot> ISSUE-54 -- tools that can't generate <!DOCTYPE html> -- OPEN
  189. # [18:09] <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/54
  190. # [18:09] <pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-54 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
  191. # [18:09] <annevk> Topic: <!DOCTYPE html>
  192. # [18:09] <masinter> action-103?
  193. # [18:09] * trackbot getting information on ACTION-103
  194. # [18:09] <trackbot> ACTION-103 -- Julian Reschke to register about: URI scheme -- due 2009-05-21 -- OPEN
  195. # [18:09] <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/103
  196. # [18:09] <pimpbot> Title: ACTION-103 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
  197. # [18:09] <annevk> JR: draft for about: has been submitted
  198. # [18:09] <annevk> JR: no discussion about the draft
  199. # [18:09] <annevk> JR: now we have to start the discussion on the URI mailing list
  200. # [18:09] <annevk> SR: good progress
  201. # [18:10] <annevk> JR: I'll report in two weeks
  202. # [18:10] <annevk> ISSUE-55?
  203. # [18:10] * trackbot getting information on ISSUE-55
  204. # [18:10] <trackbot> ISSUE-55 -- head/@profile missing, but used in other specifications/formats -- OPEN
  205. # [18:10] <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/55
  206. # [18:10] <pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-55 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
  207. # [18:10] <annevk> Topic: profile attribute
  208. # [18:10] <annevk> JR: I would like to help speccing, but had no time yet so I thought it would be good to summarize my thoughts
  209. # [18:11] <annevk> JR: I have no time in the next few weeks but can take ownership of the action
  210. # [18:11] <masinter> Julian: can you point to the posting on the URI mailing list?
  211. # [18:11] <annevk> s/Julian:/Julian,/
  212. # [18:12] <annevk> JR: it has not been posted to the URI list yet
  213. # [18:12] <annevk> JR: it's not clear whether the authors wanted to do that or whether one of us has to do that
  214. # [18:12] <annevk> grr
  215. # [18:12] * Joins: RRSAgent (rrs-loggee@128.30.52.30)
  216. # [18:12] <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-html-wg-irc
  217. # [18:13] <annevk> scribenick: annevk
  218. # [18:13] <masinter> http://www.nabble.com/IETF---Uri-review-f13113.html
  219. # [18:13] <pimpbot> Title: Nabble - IETF - Uri-review forum & mailing list archive (at www.nabble.com)
  220. # [18:14] <Julian> zakim, unmute me
  221. # [18:14] <Zakim> Julian_Reschke was not muted, Julian
  222. # [18:14] <Julian> zakim, mute me
  223. # [18:14] <Zakim> Julian_Reschke should now be muted
  224. # [18:15] <annevk> Topic: Processing requirements for ARIA
  225. # [18:15] <annevk> Cynthia: The goal is to have a WD by June 8
  226. # [18:15] <annevk> Cynthia: By the end of May to have a document that describes the existing mappings from HTML
  227. # [18:15] <annevk> Cynthia: From there we want to figure out what is missing.
  228. # [18:15] <annevk> Cynthia: Two things: implementation guidelines + mappings
  229. # [18:15] <annevk> Cynthia: CR by the end of the year if we decide to go normative
  230. # [18:15] <annevk> Cynthia: aggressive schedule but we think it is possible
  231. # [18:16] <annevk> SR: report progress again in a couple of weeks?
  232. # [18:16] <annevk> Cynthia: June 11 is ok
  233. # [18:16] <annevk> Topic: <!DOCTYPE html>
  234. # [18:16] <annevk> JR: draft for about: has been submitted
  235. # [18:16] <annevk> JR: no discussion about the draft
  236. # [18:16] <annevk> JR: now we have to start the discussion on the URI mailing list
  237. # [18:16] <annevk> SR: good progress
  238. # [18:16] <annevk> JR: I'll report in two weeks
  239. # [18:16] <annevk> Topic: profile attribute
  240. # [18:16] <annevk> JR: I would like to help speccing, but had no time yet so I thought it would be good to summarize my thoughts
  241. # [18:16] <annevk> JR: I have no time in the next few weeks but can take ownership of the action
  242. # [18:16] <annevk> JR: it has not been posted to the URI list yet
  243. # [18:16] <annevk> JR: it's not clear whether the authors wanted to do that or whether one of us has to do that
  244. # [18:16] <annevk> RRSAgent, make logs public
  245. # [18:16] <RRSAgent> I have made the request, annevk
  246. # [18:17] <masinter> I will start discussion of about: scheme
  247. # [18:17] <annevk> LM: I will make a post to the URI list
  248. # [18:17] <annevk> ISSUE-59?
  249. # [18:17] * trackbot getting information on ISSUE-59
  250. # [18:17] <trackbot> ISSUE-59 -- Should the HTML WG produce a separate document that is a normative language reference and if so what are the requirements -- OPEN
  251. # [18:17] <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/59
  252. # [18:17] <masinter> to the appropriate list for review of new URI schemes
  253. # [18:17] <pimpbot> Title: ISSUE-59 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
  254. # [18:17] <DanC> ("the URI list" is ambiguous, fwiw)
  255. # [18:18] * DanC Zakim, is mike here?
  256. # [18:18] * Zakim DanC, I see Mike_Kay in another telecon
  257. # [18:18] <annevk> Topic: normative language reference
  258. # [18:18] <annevk> SR: no meaningful process on the HTML5 XHTML namespace
  259. # [18:18] <annevk> LM: any progress on the discussion with mr Pemberton?
  260. # [18:19] <annevk> SR: not in the last couple of weeks and haven't come to any conclusion that would be of interest to PLH just yet
  261. # [18:19] <annevk> DS: I think it would be fruitful to have a discussion between PLH and SR to get things going
  262. # [18:19] <annevk> SR: I did have such a discussion on RDFa and have not yet anything meaningful to report
  263. # [18:20] <annevk> SR: [...] the ball is in my court to get various people to participate in RDFa
  264. # [18:20] <Julian> zakim, unmute me
  265. # [18:20] <Zakim> Julian_Reschke should no longer be muted
  266. # [18:20] * Joins: billmason (bmason@69.30.57.96)
  267. # [18:20] <annevk> SR: Will follow up on the action on Ian on the mailing list
  268. # [18:21] <Julian> zakim, mute me
  269. # [18:21] <Zakim> Julian_Reschke should now be muted
  270. # [18:21] <annevk> Topic: any other issues?
  271. # [18:21] <annevk> [silence]
  272. # [18:21] * Joins: aroben (aroben@131.107.167.4)
  273. # [18:21] <annevk> Topic: Maciej's suggestion on DP consensus
  274. # [18:21] <annevk> SR: LC made some comments on the maing list
  275. # [18:21] <annevk> SR: does this need to be discussed?
  276. # [18:22] <annevk> [silence]
  277. # [18:22] * DanC thought it was somebody other than cynthia... looking...
  278. # [18:22] <annevk> LM: I have some comments...
  279. # [18:23] <annevk> LM: The question is not so much whether the DP document is self-reasonable, but whether or not it has in fact been used appropriately in the document
  280. # [18:23] <annevk> LM: The DP document is ambigious
  281. # [18:24] <annevk> LM: What the document says about [Paving the Cowpaths] is that we should consider widespread authoring practice rather than inventing something totally new
  282. # [18:24] <DanC> contra-positive
  283. # [18:25] <annevk> LM: It has been used in the contra-positive
  284. # [18:25] <masinter> if A then B turns into if not A than not B
  285. # [18:26] <annevk> LM: e.g. <head profile>
  286. # [18:26] <annevk> [a side discussion between masinter and dsinger is unfortuantely not minuted]
  287. # [18:26] <annevk> LM: which things are considered widespread and which things aren't; it seems like this has been applied inconsistently
  288. # [18:26] <dsinger> i.e. if something has been previously specified, but failed to make a cowpath, then it should be de-considered
  289. # [18:26] <annevk> AvK: what makes you say that?
  290. # [18:27] <dsinger> the above is NOT a stated principle but it seems to be used as such
  291. # [18:27] <annevk> LM: I could come up with some examples, but there were some discussions that I would have to do some research on
  292. # [18:27] <annevk> LM: to give you an indication of what I think the issues are
  293. # [18:29] * Joins: Laura (lauracarls@131.212.98.217)
  294. # [18:29] <annevk> LM: that wording of the DP was changed during the discussion of the DP itself
  295. # [18:29] <Laura> The principles are open to various interpretations. In practical use, no real consensus exists on what they mean.
  296. # [18:29] <annevk> LM: existing practice was used as a benchmark against wich contervailing proposals didn't have any use against existing practice
  297. # [18:29] <Laura> Group members have fundamental differences with them.
  298. # [18:29] * Quits: myakura (myakura@114.150.90.87) (Quit: Leaving...)
  299. # [18:30] <annevk> LM: my question is that the document itself may be reasonable but the practice in which the document has been used may not which is the nature of my concern
  300. # [18:30] <Zakim> -Cynthia_Shelly
  301. # [18:30] <shepazu> q+
  302. # [18:30] * Zakim sees shepazu on the speaker queue
  303. # [18:30] <annevk> AvK: that sounded really vague and incoherent and my scribing might have reflected that for which I apoligize
  304. # [18:30] <shepazu> q-
  305. # [18:30] * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
  306. # [18:30] * Quits: otrops (otrops@78.105.10.190) (Quit: otrops)
  307. # [18:31] <Laura> There has been no meeting of the minds on the content of the design principles.
  308. # [18:31] <annevk> LM: my question was whether publishing the document today would actually describe the practices we use today
  309. # [18:31] <shepazu> q+
  310. # [18:31] * Zakim sees shepazu on the speaker queue
  311. # [18:31] <dsinger> why does the document need to be published or gain any more status? it's a guideline to help move the group along, isn't it, and hence internal?
  312. # [18:32] <annevk> AvK: to answer dsinger's question it has been published at some point so it's not internal
  313. # [18:32] <shepazu> q-
  314. # [18:32] * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
  315. # [18:32] <annevk> SR: it was on the agenda because Maciej wrote an email to address an issue and LC had concerns
  316. # [18:32] <annevk> SR: I'm happy to move it forward or leave it as is
  317. # [18:32] <Laura> If we are not going to have another poll to find out if we have real consensus of the content of the principles document, I propose that the entire document be obsoleted.
  318. # [18:33] <annevk> LM: I'm ok with leaving it as historical anecdote
  319. # [18:33] <annevk> DS: I think it helps as a general document documenting the way we think
  320. # [18:33] <annevk> DS: I don't think it's useful as rulebook
  321. # [18:33] <annevk> AvK: I agree with DS and would be happy to leave it as is
  322. # [18:34] <annevk> DS: I'll ping Maciej
  323. # [18:34] <annevk> SR: great
  324. # [18:34] <Laura> If it is decided to publish the document as a note anyway, I propose that at a minimum, a disclaimer is attached saying:
  325. # [18:34] <annevk> DougS: I think it is worth noting that when we first discussed these TimBL chimed on to say they are not useful as rule but more as describing how people arrived somewhere.
  326. # [18:34] <Laura> "Publication of this document does not constitute endorsement. There is no working group consensus on the content of these principles but it was decided that further effort to refine them and gain consensus was not a productive use of time.”
  327. # [18:35] * DanC Zakim, is Laura here?
  328. # [18:35] * Zakim probably, DanC; Laura arrived 31 minutes ago
  329. # [18:35] * Julian agrees with Doug
  330. # [18:35] <dsinger> zakim, who is on the phone?
  331. # [18:35] <Zakim> On the phone I see [Apple], Julian_Reschke (muted), Sam, Masinter, Laura (muted), Shepazu, [IPcaller], annevk, +1.503.712.aaaa, DanC, smedero
  332. # [18:35] <annevk> [For the minutes: DS might refer to both DaveS and DougS before I started using DougS. Sorry!]
  333. # [18:35] <masinter> i would question whether they reflect actually how decisions were made
  334. # [18:35] <Zakim> [Apple] has dsinger
  335. # [18:35] <annevk> Topic: process proposals
  336. # [18:35] <annevk> SR: I may have created some confusion
  337. # [18:36] <shepazu> s/somewhere./somewhere. they are mostly used as a rhetorical tool, in practice/
  338. # [18:36] <annevk> SR: What I tried to say is that for things that are not in the spec that should be in the spec we need text
  339. # [18:36] <annevk> SR: Things that are not specced will obviously not be included
  340. # [18:36] <annevk> DougS: is there some indication that spec text will be taken into account as IH has gone out of his way to reject proposed text in the past
  341. # [18:37] <annevk> SR: If that happens I will ask someone else to do the merging
  342. # [18:37] <annevk> AvK: can you point to examples?
  343. # [18:37] <annevk> DougS: the most specific example is spec text the SVG WG put forward
  344. # [18:38] <annevk> SR: I don't think there's consensus on what DougS has proposed
  345. # [18:39] <annevk> DougS: it might be of interest to this group when I was at a recent meeting of authoring vendors. When I mentioned that SVG would be put into HTML there was deep concern among SVG authoring vendors that there would be changes they were not informed about
  346. # [18:39] <annevk> DougS: I suggested that they post to public-html and www-svg
  347. # [18:40] <annevk> DougS: I will follow up with them as well
  348. # [18:40] <annevk> SR: thanks for that
  349. # [18:40] * annevk I'm not sure that's good example btw as we had contradictory proposals
  350. # [18:40] * annevk so someone had to make a decision
  351. # [18:41] <annevk> [adjourned]
  352. # [18:41] <Zakim> -DanC
  353. # [18:41] <Zakim> - +1.503.712.aaaa
  354. # [18:41] * dsinger bye
  355. # [18:41] <Zakim> -Sam
  356. # [18:41] <Zakim> -Julian_Reschke
  357. # [18:41] <Zakim> -Masinter
  358. # [18:41] <Zakim> -annevk
  359. # [18:41] <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
  360. # [18:41] <Zakim> -[Apple]
  361. # [18:41] <Zakim> -smedero
  362. # [18:41] <Laura> bye
  363. # [18:41] <annevk> RRSAgent, draft minutes
  364. # [18:41] <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-html-wg-minutes.html annevk
  365. # [18:41] <Zakim> -Laura
  366. # [18:41] <Zakim> -Shepazu
  367. # [18:41] <Zakim> HTML_WG()12:00PM has ended
  368. # [18:41] <Zakim> Attendees were Cynthia_Shelly, Julian_Reschke, dsinger, Sam, Masinter, Shepazu, Laura, [IPcaller], annevk, +1.503.712.aaaa, DanC, smedero
  369. # [18:42] <annevk> DanC, should I email the minutes?
  370. # [18:42] <annevk> DanC, and to where?
  371. # [18:42] <DanC> yes, to public-html and the announce list
  372. # [18:44] * Parts: LeifHS (s@84.208.110.159)
  373. # [18:48] <annevk> okidoki
  374. # [18:48] <annevk> done
  375. # [18:52] * Quits: Laura (lauracarls@131.212.98.217) (Quit: Laura)
  376. # [18:52] * Quits: dsinger (dsinger@17.202.35.52) (Quit: dsinger)
  377. # [18:55] * annevk didn't know about countervailing (or how to spell it)
  378. # [18:56] <annevk> contra-positive is apparently written as contrapositive
  379. # [18:59] * Joins: aroben_ (aroben@131.107.167.4)
  380. # [19:01] * Quits: aroben (aroben@131.107.167.4) (Ping timeout)
  381. # [19:02] * Quits: aroben_ (aroben@131.107.167.4) (Ping timeout)
  382. # [19:05] <annevk> DanC, did you mean uri@w3.org vs public-iri@w3.org btw or some IETF URI list?
  383. # [19:06] <DanC> in which case?
  384. # [19:06] <masinter> I agreed to post to "the appropriate list" which I believe is uri-review
  385. # [19:07] <annevk> DanC, you said '("the URI list" is ambiguous, fwiw)'
  386. # [19:07] <masinter> as per http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395
  387. # [19:07] <pimpbot> Title: RFC 4395 - Guidelines and Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes (at tools.ietf.org)
  388. # [19:07] <masinter> Send a copy of the template or a pointer to the containing
  389. # [19:07] <masinter> document (with specific reference to the section with the
  390. # [19:07] <masinter> template) to the mailing list uri-review@ietf.org, requesting
  391. # [19:07] <masinter> review. In addition, request review on other mailing lists as
  392. # [19:07] <masinter> appropriate. For example, general discussion of URI syntactical
  393. # [19:08] <masinter> issues could be discussed on uri@w3.org; schemes for a network
  394. # [19:08] <masinter> protocol could be discussed on a mailing list for that protocol.
  395. # [19:08] <masinter> Allow a reasonable time for discussion and comments. Four weeks
  396. # [19:08] <masinter> is reasonable for a permanent registration requests.
  397. # [19:08] <masinter> I think html-wg is sufficient for the "about:" scheme since it is a browser-specific scheme and most browser vendors are here
  398. # [19:09] <DanC> yes, the ambiguity I had in mind was uri@w3.org vs public-iri@w3.org
  399. # [19:09] <DanC> er... no... vs uri-review@ietf.org I think
  400. # [19:11] <annevk> ah, I didn't know about uri-review
  401. # [19:11] <annevk> subscribed
  402. # [19:12] <annevk> I think at least "about:blank" has leaked into Web content so it's not that browser specific anymore
  403. # [19:15] <annevk> Julian, how do you determine the query part?
  404. # [19:16] * tlr-later is now known as tlr
  405. # [19:16] <Julian> naive answer: using the parsing rules in RFC3986?
  406. # [19:17] <annevk> those rules don't care about unexpectec bytes and such there?
  407. # [19:17] <annevk> unexpected*
  408. # [19:18] <annevk> also, the layer approach doesn't work with respect to Unicode normalization iirc
  409. # [19:18] <Julian> I think Roy pointed out recently that RFC3986 specifies how to decompose the URI even if it contains non-URI characters.
  410. # [19:18] <annevk> pretty sure I pointed that out before
  411. # [19:18] <annevk> interesting
  412. # [19:18] <annevk> I'll take a look
  413. # [19:19] <Julian> Are the normalization requirements any different from those in IRIs?
  414. # [19:19] <Julian> Oh, you're referring to that special case we discussed something like 6 weeka go, right?
  415. # [19:20] <Julian> In which case I think the IRI spec needs fixing.
  416. # [19:20] * Joins: maddiin (mc@87.185.246.177)
  417. # [19:20] <Julian> The alternative is to layer on top of URI instead of IRI, and have custom rules for how to transform non-URI characters
  418. # [19:20] <annevk> better to fix IRI first then...
  419. # [19:21] <annevk> I can't find where the URI spec allows things outside the unreserved range
  420. # [19:21] <annevk> other than sub-delims and pct-encoded of course
  421. # [19:22] <annevk> which seems logical given that the IRI spec had to define a new grammar too
  422. # [19:22] <Julian> Back to your question.
  423. # [19:23] <Julian> As far as I can tell, the first "?" starts the query parrt, the first "#" ends it.
  424. # [19:24] <Julian> Roy may have been referring to the regex in http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.B
  425. # [19:24] <pimpbot> Title: Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax (at greenbytes.de)
  426. # [19:25] <annevk> yeah, that's not normative :)
  427. # [19:26] <Julian> So do we need more than a rule which tells us where the query part sits?
  428. # [19:28] <annevk> I suppose with a lot of trickery you can make it work, but it seems better to bite the bullet and define something that reflects reality
  429. # [19:29] <annevk> It seems that there is some support in that direction as well from various IRI editors
  430. # [19:39] <annevk> anyway, replied so those issues are archived yet again
  431. # [19:40] <annevk> guess they might not have hit www-tag yet
  432. # [19:40] <Julian> if the end product is an IRI spec that can be used in HTML5, that's good
  433. # [19:40] <annevk> we need it for CSS, XMLHttpRequest, SVG, too
  434. # [19:40] <Julian> I just don't want to see URI + IRI + LEIRI + yetanotherspec
  435. # [19:41] <annevk> I agree that'd be silly
  436. # [19:41] <Julian> I'm not convinced it's needed for all of these.
  437. # [19:41] <annevk> I am :)
  438. # [19:41] <Julian> I do believe you that it may be needed outside HTML5
  439. # [19:57] * Quits: Julian (chatzilla@217.91.35.233) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.84 [Firefox 3.0.10/2009042316])
  440. # [20:32] <Hixie> rubys: i just learnt that the tpac meeting is going to have a registration fee
  441. # [20:33] <Hixie> rubys: is there anything we can do to remove that for the people in the group who are invited experts?
  442. # [20:37] * Zakim excuses himself; his presence no longer seems to be needed
  443. # [20:37] * Parts: Zakim (rrs-bridgg@128.30.52.30)
  444. # [20:38] <Hixie> woah, i misread the price
  445. # [20:38] <masinter> i'm looking at would it would take to merge the various specs
  446. # [20:38] <Hixie> there's no way i can justify $250 to attend
  447. # [20:38] <masinter> ffor IRI + LEIRI + HTML5 web address
  448. # [20:41] <masinter> your employer, when they nominated you as a member of the working group, agreed to fund your travel
  449. # [20:41] <masinter> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#ReqsAllGroups section 6.2.1.1 ....
  450. # [20:41] <pimpbot> Title: 6 Working Groups, Interest Groups, and Coordination Groups (at www.w3.org)
  451. # [20:41] <masinter> "3.A statement that the Member will provide the necessary financial support for participation (e.g., for travel, telephone calls, and conferences).
  452. # [20:42] <masinter> similarly for Invited Experts, 6.2.1.3 Invited Expert in a Working Group
  453. # [20:43] <masinter> To be able to participate in a Working Group as an Invited Expert, an individual MUST do all of the following: ... provide a statement of who will provide the necessary financial support for the individual's participation (e.g., for travel, telephone calls, and conferences)...
  454. # [20:43] <Hixie> travel, yes
  455. # [20:43] <Hixie> this isn't travel.
  456. # [20:43] <masinter> it's a conference
  457. # [20:43] <hober> masinter: do you seriously expect all ~500-odd public invited experts to attend F2Fs?
  458. # [20:43] <Hixie> this is a blatent surcharge on top of an already ridiculous membership fee.
  459. # [20:44] <masinter> it's a purple surcharge on top of a green membership fee
  460. # [20:44] <Hixie> the whatwg has managed to develop html5 fine without ever charging anyone anything
  461. # [20:44] <Hixie> why can't the w3c?
  462. # [20:45] <masinter> no, I think having 500-odd public invited experts is not in keeping with the spirit of the W3C process. I understand why it was done, but it's inconsistent
  463. # [20:45] <Hixie> the w3c process is broken in this respect, indeed.
  464. # [20:46] <masinter> there are different kinds of organizations. IETF, W3C etc have staff who get paid and offer oversight, as well as volunteers
  465. # [20:46] <masinter> ISO and ITU and other organizations have yet different funding and meeting rules
  466. # [20:47] <masinter> I don't like it that there's a meeting charge
  467. # [20:47] <anne> Hixie, there was some lawyer cost involved in the WHATWG as well as yearly hosting charges that have to come from somewhere
  468. # [20:48] <anne> Hixie, furthermore some people are paid to contribute their time to the WHATWG (though some might do that regardless of whether they are paid)
  469. # [20:50] <masinter> sitting on the Financial Task Force for W3C, getting costs to cover expenses is a big issue
  470. # [20:50] <masinter> especially if you want to be independent of national government influence at least to some degree
  471. # [21:04] <takkaria> why can't people just have a spec which defines all URL-like things?
  472. # [21:05] <anne> 'cause people involves politics
  473. # [21:06] <Dashiva> Bordering on religion? :)
  474. # [21:08] <anne> that they're separated is only said to make you feel good
  475. # [21:24] <masinter> the separation of IRI and URI was made to allow for systems relying on 7-bit URI to upgrade or not
  476. # [21:25] <masinter> i don't think politics or religion have much to do with that split
  477. # [21:25] <masinter> the LEIRI vs. IRI vs. WebAddress split seems to have been based, though, on non-technical reasons, more like "difficulty of collaboration"
  478. # [21:25] <masinter> which isn't religion, really, but is a kind of politics
  479. # [21:28] <anne> (I was joking about the separation between politics and religion)
  480. # [21:38] * Quits: rubys (rubys@75.182.92.38) (Quit: Leaving.)
  481. # [21:52] * Quits: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38) (Quit: http://www.robodesign.ro )
  482. # [22:17] * Joins: aroben (aroben@131.107.167.4)
  483. # [22:18] * Quits: maddiin (mc@87.185.246.177) (Quit: maddiin)
  484. # [22:26] * Quits: smedero (smedero@66.114.145.154) (Quit: smedero)
  485. # [22:40] * Quits: annevk (opera@94.210.210.44) (Quit: annevk)
  486. # [22:55] <Hixie> anne: i've personally paid out of pocket all the hosting fees for whatwg, the lawyer fees were not required (they were desired by those paying the fees), and nobody has to pay anyone to take part in the whatwg
  487. # [22:55] <Hixie> anne: though they are allowed to do so if they want
  488. # [22:57] <takkaria> masinter: you can still have a spec which deals with both URIs and IRIs, surely?
  489. # [22:57] <takkaria> maybe it's more complex than it's worth
  490. # [22:57] <takkaria> but it does seem to be worth defining all important URI-related stuff in the same place
  491. # [23:05] * Quits: tlr (tlr@128.30.52.30) (Quit: tlr)
  492. # [23:29] * Joins: Julian (chatzilla@217.91.35.233)
  493. # [23:32] <Julian> Hixie, 250 USD sounds totally cheap considering that many of us do standards works with nobody paying for it at all. So do not complain to the W3C, but to big corporations such as Apple, IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, SAP and yes, Google, for not fiunding standards work sufficiently.
  494. # [23:35] <Hixie> it's not $250, it's $68,750
  495. # [23:35] <Hixie> which google pays every year
  496. # [23:35] <Hixie> (well we pay $68,500, this is adding an additional $250)
  497. # [23:35] <Hixie> (per person)
  498. # [23:36] <Hixie> and given that google also sponsors ietf, i think your statement is ridiculous
  499. # [23:36] <Hixie> standards work is not expensive
  500. # [23:39] <Julian> So, you're saying $68,500 is a lot of money for one of the biggest companies of the world? Well, I beg to differ.
  501. # [23:40] <Hixie> no
  502. # [23:40] <Hixie> it's not
  503. # [23:40] <Hixie> that's the ENTIRE POINT
  504. # [23:40] <Hixie> it's a lot of money for the people who AREN'T big companies
  505. # [23:41] <Hixie> there should not be ANY money required to be paid to partake in standards development
  506. # [23:41] <Julian> Yes, that's a problem.
  507. # [23:41] <Dashiva> E.g. why not $2500 extra on the Member fee instead of $250 for everyone
  508. # [23:41] <Hixie> whether to standards organisations, people, airplanes, hotels, anything
  509. # [23:41] <Julian> My company, 5 people, would have to pay 1/9 of what Google pays.
  510. # [23:41] <Hixie> your company, like google, shouldn't have to pay anything
  511. # [23:41] <Julian> THAT is ridicolous.
  512. # [23:42] <Julian> So, who's going to pay then?
  513. # [23:42] <Hixie> why is there anything to pay?
  514. # [23:42] <Hixie> whatwg works fine without charging anyone anything
  515. # [23:42] <Julian> Ah, so this is about the W3C stadd?
  516. # [23:42] <Julian> staff?
  517. # [23:43] <Hixie> no, it's about standards development being a pay-to-play model and this only getting worse
  518. # [23:43] <Julian> I dunno at lot about the W3C; the IETF has certain fixed costs, like the Secretariat, infrastructure, and the RFC-Editor.
  519. # [23:44] <Julian> I'm not happy with all of that overhead, but some of this is hard to avoid.
  520. # [23:44] <Hixie> not really
  521. # [23:46] <Julian> If you really believe that it should be easier for small companies to participate, then you should lobby with Google to fund that.
  522. # [23:46] <Hixie> google has already funded independent people to attend w3c meetings
  523. # [23:46] <Hixie> and we've sponsored ietf
  524. # [23:47] <Julian> Like, taking the cost for invited experts to attend meetings (that includes travel, attendance, and time)
  525. # [23:47] <Hixie> meetings are 90% of the problem
  526. # [23:47] <Hixie> get rid of meetings
  527. # [23:47] <Julian> So why "there's no way i can justify $250 to attend"
  528. # [23:47] <Julian> ?
  529. # [23:48] <Hixie> because i think it's ridiculous to charge people to attend
  530. # [23:48] <Hixie> same reason i didn't go to ietf
  531. # [23:48] <Julian> I can see why you're objecting on behalf of others, but what excatly is the problem for *you*?
  532. # [23:48] <Hixie> why should i partake in something that isn't open to everyone?
  533. # [23:49] <Hixie> it's not like these meetings are useful anyway
  534. # [23:49] <Julian> I'd recommend that you let those people who are *really* affected by this speak for themselves.
  535. # [23:50] <Hixie> they won't, the perceive the process as being so stacked against them that they don't even consider complaining
  536. # [23:50] <Julian> For people who do not get paid for this, attending the meeting inclused travel + hotel anyway, so 50 USD per day is a difference, but not as big as a difference you make it.
  537. # [23:50] <Hixie> the meetings are the problem, as i said
  538. # [23:51] <Julian> Meetings are a problem, thus it's important that they aren't more than needed, and that they are indeed useful.
  539. # [23:52] <Julian> For instance, IETF meetings three tmes a year with something like 2 hours F2F time for a WG are problematic.
  540. # [23:53] <Julian> TPAC (last year) on the other hand had ~2 days of HTML WG time, which is a big difference.
  541. # [23:53] <Hixie> the htmlwg meeting last year was a complete waste of time
  542. # [23:53] <Hixie> we made zero progress
  543. # [23:53] <Hixie> and it slowed down development for 3 weeks
  544. # [23:54] <Julian> Depends on how you measure progress; and I'm also not sure how you get from a few days to three weeks.
  545. # [23:55] * Quits: Julian (chatzilla@217.91.35.233) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.84 [Firefox 3.0.10/2009042316])
  546. # [23:55] <Hixie> i was out of work for 7 days for that meeting, traveling for a few days around that, and a week to catch up with the e-mail afterwards
  547. # [23:57] <Hixie> and i measure progress in terms of how much closer we were to getting interoperable implementations
  548. # [23:58] * Philip suggests removing all the new features, to get a huge jump in progress
  549. # [23:58] * Parts: billmason (bmason@69.30.57.96)
  550. # Session Close: Fri May 22 00:00:00 2009

The end :)