Minutes of 15 May 2003 UAWG teleconf


  1. Action item review
  2. Next ftf meeting
  3. Review of XHTML 2.0 comments

Previous meeting: 1 May 2003
Next meeting: 29 May

Roll call: Jon Gunderson (Chair), Cathy Laws, Sean Stapleford, Colin Koteles, David Poehlman, Matt May, Ian Jacobs (Scribe)

Action items

JG send draft charter to JB
IJ send XHTML 2.0 commetns
Not completed:
1. JG: Update issues TS list for removing blink and marquee tests
2. JG: Repair test suites for frames
3. JG: Contact GW Micro about review
4. JG: Add author stylesheet to individual evaluations
5. MM: Working on evaluation of Apple Safari browser
6. MM: Check into updating evaluation for to included downloaded forms
7. DP: To contact Freedom Scientific about conformance claims
8. JA and CL: Create implementation report for IBM Home Page reader using HTML 4.01 test suites
CL: No progress on HPR. I'll just fill it out.
JG: Regrets from Harvey for today.
[Some admin points on paperwork for Colin work on test suites]
JG: We should go over draft charter when WAI Team gets back.
JG: Can Colin get direct access to the CVS system.
[Discussion of account for Colin.]
IJ: JG, I suggest that you send a request to sysreq and cc' Judy, explaining why the account is necessary.
JG: We have a Konqueror review up.
IJ: They all need review since I was pointing to wrong list of checkpoints in evaluator. :(
Action IJ: Report diffs between old checkpoints and new checkpoints (checkpoints.xml and checkpoints-20031217.xml)

Next ftf meeting

JG: Sun? Apple?
MM: For when?
JG: September 2002?
JG: Late september / early October 2002 on the West Coast?
Likely to attend: CL, JG, IJ, MM, CK, DP
Unlikely: Sean
Need to agree to date 8 weeks in advance (i.e., by July)
Action JG: Ping Judy about organizing ftf meeting on West Coast (e.g., Apple)

Review of comments on XHTML 2.0

Refer to IJ summary of comments on 6 May 2003 XHTML 2.0

IJ: Sent update about 90 minutes ago
IJ: Frames discussions as starting points for discussion
IJ: We should prune things, since HTML working group is over whelmed
How these comments are organized
1. Comments related to user agent conformance
2. Comments related to accessibility themes
3. Miscellaneous comments
4. New elements?
IJ: Reviewed example in comments related to ordered and unordered lists
IJ: Defined difference between processing and rendering content
IJ: HTML WG has an opportunity to clear up spec (and not just import html 4.0 text) and promote interoperability; good for authors.
JG: Is there pressure from other groups
JG: Are there other memeber companies pushing for this?
IJ: We will be dicussing general QA issues with the AC
IJ: They should have inline or at least references to UAAG/WCAG/XAG
IJ: Currently no references to WAI documents
MM: I have a page worth of comments
IJ: Please insert them into the draft
IJ: Can you merge them?
MM: Yes
*** Accessibility themes
IJ: Rendering should reference stylesheets
IJ: They have alot of rendering information in the specification
IJ: Table of contents should be about representation of information, not rendering
IJ: Styling through default, author and user stylesheets
IJ: We can add items here related to UAAG 1.0
We say that users should be able to provide a simplified view
JG: Opera has an outline view.
IJ: Oultine views can be generated by Amaya, Mozillia
IJ: They claim they are just about markup, not behavior
IJ: Styling conditional content is important, alonng with controling styling
IJ: Definition of content
IJ: Our defintion is what is in the DOM
IJ: Other WAI groups have other definition
IJ: We want them to define content
IJ: Conditional content
IJ: There is less conditional content in XHTML 2.0
IJ: ALT and LONGDESC have been removed
IJ: The new model is using SRC on any element and the element content becomes the conditional content
IJ: Important content
IJ: Letting authors say this thing is important
IJ: There are useful things
IJ: important things can be styled to stand out
IJ: Rather than relying on markup, use an attribute to indicate importance
IJ: Some user may want to hide less important content and let the important content remain
CL: Would it be an element or attribute
JG: I think attribute is more flexible
CL: Important would still be generic
IJ: I think so
CL: You could use it to skip navigation bars, indciate key words
IJ: This is pretty vague, in order for authors and developers to use IMPORTANT there needs to be better definitions
CL: We need to define important
CL: Exapnsion
IJ: For abbreviations
IJ: I will update commments
IJ: One interesting side effect of getting rid of ALT and LONGDESC is that there is no way to differentiation between the two
IJ: It maybe useful to users to have both short and longer descriptions
JG: Is TITLE still there
IJ: yes
IJ: There is a role attribute
CL: One problem with not having LONGDESC is that you would not know what the conditional content is
IJ: OBJECT will replace IMG, and you can embed OBJECTS to give the user more options
IJ: Probably most authors will not do this
IJ: All long descriptions are out of band
IJ: There are times when you do not want to download and separating resources is useful
IJ: Will put in a description
IJ: Problem for visual and auditory user agents is how do you show options for rendering of an OBJECT
DP: We are talking about descriptions, I don't hear about replacement
DP: I need what the image is conveying if I cannot see it
DP: I don't see the discussion
DP: This is a third peice
JG: This is a WCAG issue
DP: When ALT is taking away ALT and LONGDESC, but the third issue is what the image represents
CL: Ordering issues?
IJ: There are processing instructions
CL: The problem is that the element can have both content and a TITLE attribute
IJ: Maybe what we need, I suspect that they are independent of each other
IJ: We need more specific rendering information for title
IJ: This about conditional content rendering when there are more than one piece of conditional content is available
IJ: By default no conditional content is rendered
IJ: The the next step is user configuration of what should be rendered to the user
CL: Some people what to render ALT instead of TITLE or TITLE instead of ALT
CL: XHML 2.0 problem is now TITLE versus content
IJ: Just leave this as a question in the current comments
IJ: They want to include a REL redirect
IJ: We do not want the feature, although some authors like it
*** Navigation
IJ: We need a better defintion of focus
IJ: Other groups have other different defs of focus
IJ: We can use this to clear up other defintions, for example activating a link
CL: First element after a navigation bar or first active element?
IJ: If navigation is defined as focus, then only active elements
CL: Not always defined as active element
CL: First element is not always active element
JG: Point of regard
DP: If you have an anchor, it will move to any element you tell it to