15:59:48 RRSAgent has joined #html-wg
15:59:48 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/08/14-html-wg-irc
15:59:50 RRSAgent, make logs public
15:59:50 Zakim has joined #html-wg
15:59:52 Zakim, this will be HTML
15:59:52 ok, trackbot; I see HTML_WG()12:00PM scheduled to start in 1 minute
15:59:53 Meeting: HTML Issue Tracking Teleconference
15:59:53 Date: 14 August 2008
16:00:05 Zakim, call Mike
16:00:05 ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made
16:00:06 HTML_WG()12:00PM has now started
16:00:07 +Mike
16:00:36 +DanC
16:00:52 Laura has joined #html-wg
16:01:54 Regrets: Joshue
16:01:59 + +1.218.349.aaaa
16:02:03 oedipus: you calling in today?
16:02:13 +Cynthia_Shelly
16:02:14 yes right now
16:02:26 +Gregory_Rosmaita
16:02:32 + +49.251.280.aabb
16:02:45 zakim, who is here?
16:02:45 On the phone I see Mike, DanC, +1.218.349.aaaa, Cynthia_Shelly, Gregory_Rosmaita, +49.251.280.aabb
16:02:47 Zakin, +49.251.280is me
16:02:48 On IRC I see Laura, Zakim, RRSAgent, oedipus, Lachy, smedero, billmason, xover, tlr, MikeSmith, shepazu, Julian, ROBOd, Shunsuke, tH, sryo, Thezilch, timelyx, scotfl, DanC,
16:02:53 ... beowulf, heycam, matt, Dashiva, Philip, jgraham_, jmb, gavin, gavin_, hober, ed_work, krijnh, gDashiva, timeless, inimino, deltab, jgraham, takkaria, Hixie, hsivonen, drry,
16:02:56 ... Yudai, trackbot, t
16:02:57 Zakim, +49.251.280 is me
16:02:57 +Julian; got it
16:03:00 Zakim, aabb is Julian
16:03:00 sorry, DanC, I do not recognize a party named 'aabb'
16:03:12 Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:03:12 On the phone I see Mike, DanC, +1.218.349.aaaa, Cynthia_Shelly, Gregory_Rosmaita, Julian
16:03:29 Zakim, aaaa is Laura
16:03:29 +Laura; got it
16:03:37 zakim, who is here
16:03:37 oedipus, you need to end that query with '?'
16:03:40 zakim, who is here?
16:03:40 On the phone I see Mike, DanC, Laura, Cynthia_Shelly, Gregory_Rosmaita, Julian
16:03:42 On IRC I see Laura, Zakim, RRSAgent, oedipus, Lachy, smedero, billmason, xover, tlr, MikeSmith, shepazu, Julian, ROBOd, Shunsuke, tH, sryo, Thezilch, timelyx, scotfl, DanC,
16:03:46 ... beowulf, heycam, matt, Dashiva, Philip, jgraham_, jmb, gavin, gavin_, hober, ed_work, krijnh, gDashiva, timeless, inimino, deltab, jgraham, takkaria, Hixie, hsivonen, drry,
16:03:50 ... Yudai, trackbot, t
16:04:12 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda
16:04:40 hmm... profile doesn't show up in "Issues discussed over the last week" ... I guess we didn't give any tracker clues in the discussion. or was that last week?
16:04:49 Zakim, call shepazu
16:04:49 ok, shepazu; the call is being made
16:04:50 +Shepazu
16:05:05 Zakim, mute shepazu
16:05:05 Shepazu should now be muted
16:06:04 profile: I guess it was the week before
16:06:08 + +1.425.646.aacc
16:06:18 Zakim, +1.425.646.aacc is me
16:06:18 +smedero; got it
16:06:28 Scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita
16:06:33 ScribeNick: oedipus
16:06:54 TOPIC: Agenda Review
16:07:21 MS: trackbot page - if something not yet entered into tracker but want addressed today, speak up now, please
16:07:31 zakim, mute me
16:07:31 sorry, oedipus, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
16:07:38 zakim, mute Gregory_Rosmaita
16:07:38 Gregory_Rosmaita should now be muted
16:07:56 MS: no agenda additions - preferences on where to start?
16:08:06 DC: curious about the raised issues
16:08:11 MS: start with raised issue
16:08:16 s/issue/issues
16:08:26 MS: go through in reverse chronological order?
16:08:28 issue-58?
16:08:28 ISSUE-58 -- Use of "curly brackets" to identify a graphical image by its use or type by inserting a generic identifier / descriptor in curly braces as the @alt value for an IMG, -- RAISED
16:08:28 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/58
16:08:33 TOPIC: ISSUE 58
16:08:41 DC: clearly a dupe of missing alt to me
16:08:48 MS: agree, but a bit more precise
16:08:49 q+
16:09:27 MS: discussions gone on for months about alt -- after reviewing several proposals for handling disputed cases where author can't determine useful alternative text, what should the author do?
16:10:11 MS: 1 solution offered was curly brace delimited generic type text placeholder to provide information for software to use in intelligent matter -- user choice of what to expose and not
16:10:24 Curly braces is but one of many potential solutions have been discussed and are listed at:
16:10:24 http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueAltAttribute#head-27468e7ee9afd1f9e07186c8d74f0b0168b3975a
16:10:28 yes, {photo} is the recent proposal for the missing-alt issue; making a new issue doesn't seem like a useful way to organize the discussion.
16:10:30 Advice has been sought, is needed, and is pending from PFWG regarding what an authoring or publishing tool should insert, in a case where no alt has been provided by the author, but the image is known to be "critical content".
16:10:30 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Apr/0408.html
16:10:32 MS: hixie sent message many months ago to PF, but no response
16:10:36 usurping the role of WAI. PF has previously pointed out, "WCAG WG is chartered to set Accessibility guidelines and HTML WG is not".
16:10:37 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0082.html
16:10:37 The W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) is the accessibility authority.
16:10:46 MS: recently, hixie made change to spec, and that sparked response
16:10:57 Imposing a particular solution and adding it to the draft could be seen as usurping the role of WAI. PF has previously pointed out, "WCAG WG is chartered to set Accessibility guidelines and HTML WG is not".
16:10:57 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0082.html
16:10:57 The W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) is the accessibility authority.
16:11:03 zakim, unmute me
16:11:03 sorry, oedipus, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
16:11:04 The curly braces proposal in the editor's draft doesn't appear to be a text equivalent per WCAG. The HTML WG needs to be sure deliverables satisfy accessibility requirements. PF are the go-to-guys for guidance in accessibility matters. PF's counsel is needed BEFORE any particular solution is chosen to be added to the next published draft. The curly braces proposal should not be published outside of an editor's draft without consultation and collaboration
16:11:10 zakim, unmute Gregory_Rosmaita
16:11:10 Gregory_Rosmaita should no longer be muted
16:11:19 MS: change in discussion since added to spec
16:11:25 q?
16:11:52 q+
16:12:06 q-
16:12:20 GJR: alt for human parseable info, need @role for machine parseable info/hooks
16:12:25 ack me
16:12:48 CS: PF talked about this on call yesterday, working on proposal/response
16:14:00 MS: commenting on GJR's comments - HTML WG has as its mandate what @alt is - can change purpose of alt attribute to make provisions to bring up to date with use cases and reqs that are out there; def of @alt is not static and locked-down for ever; not categorically an abuse if redefine @alt to accept something other than textual equivalent
16:14:27 GJR: if @alt is to be used as machine parseable, info - how is @alt equivalent to be expressed?
16:14:30 MS: yet to be determined
16:14:32 The Protocols and Formats Working Group (PFWG) has not yet provided guidance with regarding curly braces proposal in the the img section of the editor's draft with respect to conformance with:
16:14:32 - Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)
16:14:32 - Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG)
16:14:32 - User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG)
16:14:55 MS: can't cut conversation short by citing older recs
16:15:19 GJR: that's the proposal @role that would fulfil this use case without compromising alt for those who care of can add it
16:15:36 The curly braces proposal should not be published outside of an editor's draft without consultation and collaboration with PF.
16:16:07 It seems as if the curly braces proposal is meant for meta data and would fit better in a separate img attribute. In any event it isn't a text equivalent per WCAG. Not only do reserved characters pollute the possible values available for an attribute whose data type is string, but also it is meta data about the image - not an equivalent. They are two different things.
16:16:31 GJR: what will happen when author wants to add alt text as equiv and machine parseable info for app processing?
16:16:39 What if someone actually has an image of {} or {captcha} etc - text shouldn't be in graphics, but what if this is needed where say someone is showing how text appears in a new font they are designing?
16:16:45 (this discussion is hard to follow; some are arguing positions in the design space, some are pointing out the scope of the HTML WG, and some are arguing that one issue is a dup of another.)
16:16:48 MS: case where author not able to put useable text equiv into value of @alt
16:17:12 MS: no agreement on @alt - even disagreement over use cases
16:17:47 MS: if don't address requirement, then result is that authors just going to dump use of content into @alt - spirit of change was to address use case/req for those who cannot add @alt
16:18:18 GJR: ability to auto-add machine-parseable info should NOT compromise the author's ability to provide a textual equivalent
16:18:44 GJR: reason @role was suggested was to satisfy the original use case that led to the curly braces verbiage
16:18:52 robburns has joined #html-wg
16:19:00 q+ to get back to the raised issue and suggest again that ISSUE-58 curly alt be closed as a dup of ISSUE-31 missing-alt
16:19:24 ack Cyn
16:19:30 CS: agree that use case exists, but don't think curly braces best -- like GJR's solution, but some reservations, need to think through; would be useful to have both categorization and equivalent info
16:19:45 ack danc
16:19:46 DanC, you wanted to get back to the raised issue and suggest again that ISSUE-58 curly alt be closed as a dup of ISSUE-31 missing-alt
16:20:01 DanC: curly alt discussion is same as missing alt - wouldn't make seperate decisions
16:20:55 q+
16:21:06 MS: DanC's wants to close new issue - same design space
16:21:13 GJR: moves issue forward by proposing @role
16:21:33 (hmm... I didn't see anything about @role in the curly alt issue)
16:21:37 MS: want to avoid proliferation of core issues - personally agree with dan, good to discuss on call, but not sure a seperate issue
16:21:40 q-
16:21:51 MS: can append or change description but same issue
16:22:02 Either close 58 *and* update 31, or close 31 and update 58.
16:23:13 GJR: ability to perceive visual image a use case that is not changed since web began - this is an attempt to rectify
16:23:32 MS: not going to fall through cracks - bigger issue is sole place to track discussion about this part of the problem
16:23:54 what's a better title, indeed?
16:24:04 CS: re-write title of other issue - categorization of objects and not just "missing alt"
16:24:09 "Should img without alt ever be conforming"
16:24:12 issue-31?
16:24:12 ISSUE-31 -- Should img without alt ever be conforming -- OPEN
16:24:12 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/31
16:24:37 CS: handling cases where alt is unknown?
16:24:40 "handling cases where alt is unknown" works for me
16:24:56 GJR: machine-parseable versus human-parseable values for @alt
16:25:01 MS: replacement?
16:25:05 CS: yes, but first draft
16:25:24 I'd also suggest changing the short title from `missing-alt` to just `@alt` or something equally general...
16:25:38 I think that's too far, smedero
16:25:41 ahh, ok.
16:26:08 I can see "machine-parseable versus human-parseable values" as a separate issue. I didn't get it from the initial text of issue 58
16:26:18 aroben has joined #html-wg
16:26:20 aroben_ has joined #html-wg
16:26:21 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: issue 31 title: Should img without alt ever be conforming; machine-parseable versus human-parseable values for @alt
16:26:28 GJR: thinks conflating issues
16:26:33 blech.
16:26:35 GJR: minus 1
16:26:47 I like "handling cases where alt is unknown" much better.
16:26:59 GJR: retract minus 1 to plus 1
16:27:11 CS: current issue name is inflammatory
16:27:28 CS: more about how to figure out what to do when good alt not available
16:27:44 CS: one an implementation detail one a spec detail
16:28:06 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: issue 31 title: Should img without alt ever be conforming; what to do when good alt not available
16:28:13 DanC: handling cases where alt is unknown doesn't work for GJR?
16:28:31 I like the proposal
16:28:33 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: issue 31 title: Should img without alt ever be conforming; what to do when a reasonable alt cannot be determined
16:28:54 CS: handling cases where a useful or reasonable @alt is not available
16:29:11 GJR: that to me is an authoring tool implementation problem, not a declarative language problem
16:29:13 (tweaking based on what I hear... "handling cases where reasonable alt is unknown/unavailable")
16:29:43 CS: is and isn't - can be author tool issue - when doing mash-ups, can't know what object is - having way of saying what kind of image or where came from is needed - role might satisfy that
16:30:15 The original issue was Omitting alt Attribute for "Critical Content"
16:30:16 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: issue 31 title: Should img without alt ever be conforming; what to do when a reasonable alt is unknown/unavailable
16:30:16 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2007Oct/0044.html
16:30:26 "what to do when reasonable alt is unknown/unavailable" works for me
16:30:29 GJR: decide first on @alt and @role - @role would be easily machine-extractable and insertable
16:30:48 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: issue 31 title: What to do when a reasonable alt is unknown/unavailable?
16:31:00 CS: what to do when a text a textual equivalent is not available
16:31:15 MS: like term "text" better
16:31:16 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: issue 31 title: What to do when a reasonable text equivalent is unknown/unavailable?
16:31:27 GJR: can live with that
16:32:03 (this doesn't seem like a technical decision, so we can make this "decision" in a telcon)
16:32:13 I've got ISSUE-31 in front of me, so I can make that title change....
16:32:17 (i.e. this is just issue tracking admin)
16:32:29 I have ISSUE-31 open in edit mode too, fyi
16:32:33 smedero: hang on just for a minute
16:32:34 ahh, nevermind
16:32:35 :)
16:32:45 CS: spend time in PF looking at use case from author and user POV;
16:32:48 MS: good idea
16:33:02 RESOLUTION: change issue 31 title to: "What to do when a reasonable text equivalent is unknown/unavailable?"
16:33:39 smedero, please change title and also add a note, specically about @role
16:33:49 GJR: concerned about those who want to do the right thing and provide meaningful textual equiv through @alt and machine-parseable info through @role - valid use case - want to provide meaningful equivalent and a machine-parseable hook
16:34:00 MS: can we expect to hear back from PF on use of @role?
16:34:12 CS: soon is a relative term
16:34:18 GJR: is on PF's radar and on PF's radar
16:34:20 DanC: did you have some changes to 31 that you wanted to make or were in the middle of?
16:34:48 no
16:34:58 MS: good - laura's earlier point on PF's position - editor's draft is one thing, going past is another is well taken - not going to get to LC without agreement on this - try to do now or later, better to do now
16:35:23 -Cynthia_Shelly
16:35:35 smedero, please also close out issue 58 with a note
16:35:44 s/on PF's radar/on PF's agenda
16:36:01 GJR: trying to provide requirements and comprehensive use cases
16:36:11 MS: coming to a mutual understanding of what reqs are
16:36:17 +[Microsoft]
16:36:27 31's title is updated, going back to add the bits about @rol
16:36:30 erm @role.
16:36:41 MS: by charter, not chartered to make binding decisions in telecon time, but can make decisions about issue tracking; main topic covered in this call
16:37:08 q+ to ask about a few more raised issues
16:37:13 MS: those who call in to telecons, are more likely to shape issue tracking (nudge, nudge)
16:37:25 TOPIC: Raised Issues of Recent Vintage
16:37:43 Zakim, unmute me
16:37:43 Shepazu should no longer be muted
16:37:50 MS: last one quotation marks for Q element - not useful to discuss
16:37:57 q+
16:38:03 DanC: clarification from MS
16:38:39 MS: problem - everytime close issue, there will be an objection; reluctant to close anything out because don't want to generate an email storm; should start closing issues out
16:38:46 DanC: stright up close or keep
16:38:57 MS: proposals for closure?
16:39:12 MS: can go through 1 by 1 in 20 minutes left to decide to close
16:39:21 MS: not good to keep too much open at one time
16:39:33 MS: walk through rest of issues?
16:40:04 MS: based on past experience, closing issues, raises an email firestorm, but that should affect efficiency of tracker
16:40:07 the issue on curie's could be closed since it was added only for one person and completely misunderstands curie's HTML5 or both
16:40:18 DanC: raised until someone takes an action item to do something
16:40:27 MS: 20-odd issues we haven't touched
16:40:46 MS: try to pick the low-hanging fruit today's discussion
16:40:57 robburns, what is issue number?
16:41:03 q?
16:41:08 ack DanC
16:41:08 DanC, you wanted to ask about a few more raised issues
16:41:12 ack shepazu
16:41:36 DS: quick question: with PF one needs to have them come to HTML WG with use cases and reqs, is it also useful if come with proposed wording?
16:41:46 DanC: hixie doesn't welcome suggested text, but helps me
16:42:03 aria-curie is issue 51
16:42:11 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/51
16:42:37 GJR: PF is working on specific verbiage and requirements
16:42:48 DS: is it reasonable to put forth proposed wording or not?
16:43:09 MS: yes, don't listen to what hixie says -- proposed text CAN state req more clearly than stating req in abstract terms
16:43:20 MS: more helpful to propose text - no harm
16:43:44 DS: good tactic to state reqs, use cases, take proposed text and correlate which part of text goes with which req
16:43:57 DS: how HTML WG accepts input is my query
16:44:46 MS: for group as whole -- editor does have control over final wording - to propose to working group as a whole as discussion, is in my opinion FAR more helpful than dealing with abstracts
16:45:24 Tracker definitions seem to have been followed for the curly brace issue. "RAISED = Issue tracker staff suggests this is worth a WG discussion and potentially a decision."
16:45:24 http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/
16:45:29 MS: when new info available, should be brought to group
16:45:31 present+ robburns
16:45:46 TOPIC: Tracker Agenda Review, continued
16:45:56 MS: raised issues - lot are stale
16:46:17 MS: can continue to review issues - nothing super-recent (end-of july or pending review for end-of july august)
16:46:21 action-73?
16:46:21 ACTION-73 -- Dan Connolly to follow up on WAI-ARIA markup thread, emphasizing the conformance point -- due 2008-07-31 -- PENDINGREVIEW
16:46:21 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/73
16:46:22 MS: top of agenda, action 73
16:46:30 TOPIC: Action 73
16:46:34