Re: [whatwg] Video codec requirements changed [ISSUE-7 video-codecs]
Ian Hickson wrote: I've temporarily removed the requirements on video codecs from the HTML5 spec, since the current text isn't helping us come to a useful interoperable conclusion. When a codec is found that is mutually acceptable to all major parties I will update the spec to require that instead and then reply to all the pending feedback on video codecs. http://www.whatwg.org/issues/#graphics-video-codec Thanks for letting us know. This message connects the email discussion to the issue tracker... http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/7 -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Re: [whatwg] Feedback on the ping= attribute (ISSUE-1)
Julian Reschke wrote: [...] On Sat, 27 Oct 2007, Julian Reschke wrote: We're long past that. It's trivial for a page to trigger a POST without the user knowing. I consider that a bug in User Agents. This is not a widely held opinion. Well, it's what RFC2616 says. I would argue that if the HTML WG thinks there is a problem in what RFC2616 has to say about how to use unsafe methods, it should bring this to the attention of the newly formed HTTP WG. True, whenever our spec conflicts with some other group's spec, it creates a dependency; we're obliged to get review from that other group and see whether they think what we're doing is reasonable. The chairs are supposed to keep track of all such dependencies; the current HTML 5 draft seems to have a long of them. I have some notes at http://www.w3.org/html/wg/il16#coord ; I'm thinking about how to migrate it to tracker. While the cost of getting review is a consideration, it's far from a compelling argument. Sometimes the right answer involves changing more than just the HTML spec. Meanwhile, there's also the charter to keep track of; when we go outside the bounds of what our original call for participation said, we need to update that call for participation by having the W3C membership review the charter change. http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#CharterReview Stay tuned for more on managing the edge of our scope later this week, in email and/or in the meeting... http://www.w3.org/html/wg/nov07 -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Re: [whatwg] Answering the question... (timing of table headers issue)
On Thu, 2007-08-23 at 10:40 -0700, John Foliot wrote: [...] Despite protracted discussion (argument?) and a formal submission from the WAI PF regarding the requirement of headers for complicated tables on June 6, 2007 [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/0145.html], the official word from Ian Hickson is that they've not yet looked at them. What more needs to be looked at? Our community provided research, rationale and worked within the system (and the system's rules) in response to this issue, yet it is still deemed open or unresolved. It is *exactly* this kind of response/reaction that many such as myself are frustrated with. This issue should be resolved - now. I sympathize with your frustration, but I ask that you remain patient. I am in regular communication with Al Gilman about that June 6 message. He understands that it may be some weeks/months before the HTML WG has a considered response. (I think I just missed you yesterday, Al.) The current priorities of this group, as noted in the Current Events section of our homepage http://www.w3.org/html/wg/#current 1. design principles 2. initial reviews of the HTML 5 spec These initial reviews are breadth-first; the goal is to raise issues and awareness, but not to fully address all the issues that come up, just yet. I tried putting something else ahead of design principles, namely a differences between HTML 4 and HTML 5 document, but there were formal objections that appealed to the What should the HTML WG publish first? survey http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/wd7/results which put the design principles ahead of the spec, 34 to 25. The back-log of comments on HTML specs goes back a lot further than June of this year. In May, the editors asked for a few months to deal with a backlog of a few years of WHATWG feedback. It has now been a few months, and I'm starting to re-negotiate priorities with the editors. But keep in mind that we have, so far, made *no* design decisions. We haven't decided that HTML 5 will have a p element. Before we address subtle issues like the table headers issue, first we should deal with the fact that we're about 3 months overdue for releasing anything on http://www.w3.org/TR/ for community review by finishing the current round of discussion on design principles. Then I think we should tackle a few no-brainer technical issues just to get a feel for the process. And then we'll decide about table headers and that sort of thing. I appreciate the testing and research that is going on meanwhile. That's an essential part of quality design decision-making. I recommend teleconferences as a good way to get a feel for group priorities and schedule. For example, we talked about the timing of this table headers issue last week. http://www.w3.org/2007/08/16-html-wg-minutes#item05 -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Re: [whatwg] Answering the question... (timing of table headers issue)
On Thu, 2007-08-23 at 12:14 -0700, John Foliot wrote: Dan Connolly wrote: I sympathize with your frustration, but I ask that you remain patient. Dan, Thank you for your prompt response. While patience is indeed a virtue, my (our?) patience is being sorely tested, as while the official word is that we're nowhere near deciding anything, current editors and contributors are going ahead and making pronouncements that lead many to believe that much of HTML5 is 'fait accomplis'. As someone once said to me, you can't suck and blow at the same time. To whit: * Is Anne (Standards Suck) van Kesteren out of place to be announcing that HTML5 has dropped input usemap? [http://annevankesteren.nl/2007/08/input-usemap] Evidently; i.e. perception is reality, and I'm getting complaints about this weblog entry. Anne, you and I have certainly talked about the connotations and denotations of dropped. Something like the editors are evidently inclined to drop input usemap; it will be interesting to see whether any new arguments come up perhaps wouldn't have generated as many complaints. How about updating your weblog entry with something like that, Anne? * Is Lachlan Hunt definitive when stating, HTML5 now defines the usemap attribute as a Hashed ID Reference, not a URI, and can only reference maps within the same document. [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=189643], as well as HTML5 currently will not be including the usemap attribute on input elements. [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=392994] He seems to be accurately quoting from current editor's drafts. That seems like a useful way to get feedback from the mozilla development community, no? It seems to me that in the bugzilla context, it's reasonably well known that HTML 5 is a moving target. The Mozilla foundation is reasonably well represented in this working group; I'm interested to get confirmation as to whether this is business-as-usual or something counter to norms there. * Is From Maciej Stachowiak correct when he states, This feature is underspecified in HTML4, and not implemented by IE. It is also likely to be dropped in HTML5 and may be removed from Mozilla and Opera as a result. [http://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15032] I accept underspecified and likely to be dropped as his opinion, and as far as I know he's correct that it's not implemented by IE. These types of pronouncements *do* tend to send mixed messages, don't you agree? Yes. That's an accurate reflection of the constituencies in the working group: there are a variety of opinions. We could have chartered the working group to keep its discussions member-confidential until we reached consensus, but I don't think that would be better. If these authors/HTML 5 contributors can be categorically making these kinds of statements, then is it not unreasonable to expect something like, Based upon current feedback, the headers attribute will be preserved in HTML5 (attribute to whom you wish)? What I get from Al Gilman's 6 June message is that something that provides the functionality of the headers attribute is needed. He doesn't argue that the headers attribute is the only acceptable solution. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/0145.html I have seen a fair amount of test data fly by and I have seen a lot of discussion of use cases. I have not digested it all yet. I know that these issues have been raised to you previously. If we are to accept that it is still at the ...*no* design decisions made... stage then is it unreasonable for us to expect that these types of statements/pronouncements cease from the editors? Else, there will continue to be a perception of what you say vs. what you do that outsiders will continue to question (and continue to revisit - Lachlan's initial complaint). Indeed, until the issue is resolved, we all have to accept that it will continue to be discussed and revisited. Respectfully, JF -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Re: [whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 and the W3C Patent Policy
On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 22:12 -0700, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: [...] Anyway, Opera in W3C abides by the W3C patent policy, and has already made the relevant commitment to the WAF group, which has already been working on WF2. FYI, W3C keeps public record of patent policy status for each WG, such as the one for WAF that shows what Opera and others have agreed to. Web Application Formats Working Group Patent Policy Status http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/38483/status -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
[whatwg] call for participation: W3C HTML Working Group
Hi, W3C chartered a new HTML Working Group today. http://www.w3.org/html/wg/ http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter In recognition of the WHAT WG requirements gathering, design, testing, and review efforts, and on the advice of various W3C member organizations, the W3C HTML Working Group is chartered to actively pursue convergence with WHATWG, encouraging open participation within the bounds of the W3C patent policy and available resources. So please do consider participating. Administration of the W3C patent policy does involve a bit of administrative overhead; I hope you'll agree that it's worthwhile, in the interest of the goal of assuring that Recommendations produced under this policy can be implemented on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis. Ian Hixie wrote a good summary of the steps for joining the Working Group. http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-March/009887.html http://blog.whatwg.org/w3c-restarts-html-effort I see that several people are several steps into that process. I hope I can tend to those presently. I'm traveling this week, so I hope you'll excuse a bit of a delay. Ian also notes that Surprisingly, the W3C never actually contacted the WHATWG during the chartering process. Oops. I hope you'll excuse that too. Getting this working group chartered was a very involved process, and I suppose I dropped a few balls along the way. I hope not too many. I look forward to working on HTML with you. p.s. I am copying [EMAIL PROTECTED]; note that if you reply all, you'll be greeted by the W3C archive approval anti-spam robots, unless you have already been through that ritual. http://www.w3.org/2002/09/aa/ -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
