15:56:34 RRSAgent has joined #html-wg
15:56:34 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/08/06-html-wg-irc
15:57:35 Stevef has joined #html-wg
15:59:07 Zakim has joined #html-wg
15:59:26 *irc
16:00:22 zakim, start call
16:00:22 I don't understand 'start call', rubys1
16:00:47 trackbot, start call
16:00:47 Sorry, rubys1, I don't understand 'trackbot, start call'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
16:00:48 Title: IRC Trackbot (at www.w3.org)
16:00:51 laplink has joined #html-wg
16:01:15 trackbot, start telcon
16:01:17 RRSAgent, make logs public
16:01:19 Zakim, this will be HTML
16:01:19 ok, trackbot, I see HTML_WG()12:00PM already started
16:01:20 Meeting: HTML Weekly Teleconference
16:01:20 Date: 06 August 2009
16:01:21 +Julian
16:01:22 +Radhika_Roy
16:01:26 dsinger has joined #html-wg
16:01:32 +[Apple]
16:01:44 zakim [apple] has dsinger
16:01:52 zakim, [apple] has dsinger
16:01:52 +dsinger; got it
16:01:53 +Masinter
16:01:53 + +1.415.595.aabb
16:02:07 zakim, who is on the call
16:02:07 I don't understand 'who is on the call', rubys1
16:02:14 + +47.40.28.aacc
16:02:19 I'm on - I think
16:02:21 masinter has joined #html-wg
16:02:31 +[IPcaller]
16:02:52 zakim, IPcaller is Stevef
16:02:52 +Stevef; got it
16:02:56 I guess I must be [IPcaller]
16:03:01 oh, maybe not
16:03:14 zakim, who is on the phone?
16:03:14 On the phone I see Sam, ??P2, +1.703.234.aaaa, Julian, Radhika_Roy, [Apple], Masinter, +1.415.595.aabb, +47.40.28.aacc, Stevef
16:03:17 [Apple] has dsinger
16:03:17 - +47.40.28.aacc
16:03:30 +Matt_May
16:03:43 it's awful quiet on the call
16:03:50 ?
16:03:54 I'm on the phone, too, should be +49 (or VOIP)
16:04:00 no, I dropped off. calling back
16:04:22 + +47.40.28.aadd
16:04:25 Zakim, I am aadd
16:04:25 +Lachy; got it
16:04:44 + +1.519.378.aaee
16:04:53 -??P2
16:05:11 +Laura
16:05:21 +??P34
16:05:25 zakim, aabb is mjs
16:05:25 +mjs; got it
16:05:32 zakim, aabb is mjs
16:05:32 sorry, dsinger, I do not recognize a party named 'aabb'
16:05:36 zakim, ??P34 is kliehm
16:05:36 +kliehm; got it
16:05:50 zakim, +1.415.595.aabb is mjs
16:05:50 sorry, dsinger, I do not recognize a party named '+1.415.595.aabb'
16:05:59 zakim, who is on the phone?
16:05:59 On the phone I see Sam, +1.703.234.aaaa, Julian, Radhika_Roy, [Apple], Masinter, mjs, Stevef, Matt_May, Lachy, +1.519.378.aaee, Laura, kliehm
16:06:01 [Apple] has dsinger
16:06:04 zakim, pick a scribe
16:06:04 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Laura
16:06:19 zakim, pick a scribe
16:06:19 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Juian
16:06:22 zakim aabb is mjs
16:06:27 +Cynthia_Shelly
16:06:34 zakim, aabb is mjs
16:06:34 sorry, kliehm, I do not recognize a party named 'aabb'
16:06:40 scribe: Julian
16:07:00 chair: rubys
16:07:05 LHSilli has joined #html-wg
16:07:22 issue-35
16:07:32 issue-35?
16:07:32 ISSUE-35 -- Need to define processing requirements for aria states and properties when used in html -- OPEN
16:07:32 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/35
16:07:33 Title: ISSUE-35 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
16:07:33 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/35
16:07:57 cynthia: making progress, FPWD this month planned
16:08:10 cynthia: working on HTML mappings
16:08:33 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0279.html
16:08:34 Title: Re: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-08-05 from Ian Hickson on 2009-08-05 (public-html@w3.org from August 2009) (at lists.w3.org)
16:08:36 cynthia: report again in 3..4 weeks
16:08:55 rubys: hixie asked for specific feedback
16:09:11 cynthia: differences in WG process
16:09:31 cynthia: do not respond before all comments are processed
16:09:38 cynthia: ETA 3..4 months
16:09:39 q?
16:09:42 q+
16:10:02 q+
16:10:23 cynthia: explains the HTML vs ARIA mapping issue
16:11:14 DanC has joined #html-wg
16:11:27 q+
16:11:52 +DanC
16:12:47 ack stevef
16:12:58 SteveF: (misssed this)
16:13:10 J_Voracek has joined #html-wg
16:13:27 q+ murray
16:13:40 ack next
16:14:06 mjs: explains hixie's comments
16:14:12 I'm interested to see ARIA integrated by reference too, though it's not clear to me how that would work
16:14:35 Zakim, passcode?
16:14:35 the conference code is 4865 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), annevk
16:15:06 mjs: ...inconsistent state between HTML and ARIA semantics... make non-conforming?
16:15:10 To integrate it by reference it would need to define all the areas of overlap between aria semantics and native semantics
16:15:33 mjs: ARIA currently says host language can't override
16:16:54 q+
16:16:59 mjs: q
16:17:00 q-
16:17:07 to type my remarks into the record:
16:17:13 ack murray
16:17:18 SteveF: promises feedback next week
16:17:21 -DanC
16:17:43 1) What Ian specifically wants is to make inconsistent states between native markup and ARIA roles/properties noncomforming - right now ARIA doesn't let a host language do that
16:17:46 Murray: asks for mechanism to describe conformance
16:18:18 q+
16:19:01 +DanC
16:19:11 ack masinter
16:19:13 J_Voracek has joined #html-wg
16:19:16 2) (from my earlier remarks) we should ask PFWG to expedite processing of this specific comment
16:19:33 masinter: inclusion vs reference of ARIA
16:19:44 -Cynthia_Shelly
16:19:52 +??P12
16:19:54 masinter: motivation for the current plan
16:20:00 Zakim, ??P12 is me
16:20:00 +annevk; got it
16:20:37 ack stevef
16:20:55 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/#host_lang_impl
16:20:56 Title: Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 (at www.w3.org)
16:20:57 Murray, the ARIA DTD extends the HTML DTD, but doesn't prohibit any inconsistencies.
16:21:09 So I heard Sam say that no one advocated inclusion of ARIA rather than reference to the ARIA spec
16:21:54 s/no one advocated/he had not heard of anybody advocating/
16:22:06 I assume the issue is not includion vs reference so much as how much HTML needs to say about the mapping between native semantics and aria semantics
16:22:23 i.e. I assume no one is proposing duplicating aria in HTML
16:22:38 Why does ARIA override?
16:23:03 i'm doing a text search on ARIA in http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html
16:23:04 Title: HTML 5 (at dev.w3.org)
16:23:18 stevef: not sure whether there's a problem with the current draft
16:23:20 I think mjs said something about a problem with WAI ARIA not allowing host languages to set conformance requirements; steve can't find any such problem in a current draft
16:23:44 can someone provide a link to the current editor's draft?
16:23:55 again, http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/#host_lang_impl
16:23:56 Title: Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 (at www.w3.org)
16:24:00 stevef would like ian to reconfirm that he still has an issue with the current draft
16:24:51 also, things like " assistive technology SHOULD assign preference to the WAI-ARIA feature" seem incorrect, given that the browser tells something to the assistive technology, not the other way around
16:24:53 "The appearance of the name literal of any concrete WAI-ARIA role (see section 7.3.2) as one of these substrings MUST NOT in and of itself make the attribute value illegal in the host-language syntax" -- 6.1.1. Role Attribute
16:24:54 (as a concrete example I believe the issue is things like
16:24:57 )
16:26:16 Anne: wouldn't it be better to wait until ARIA is out of LC?
16:26:27 mjs, you seem to be reading a comment from hixie; pointer, please?
16:26:30 Maciej: that would delay it too much
16:26:57 I can imagine designers who want a radio button to *look* like a checkbox, so that's no contradiction then.
16:27:08 rubys, pushing back one week
16:27:09 DanC, I followed the link from what rubys linked earlier: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/comments/details?comment_id=267
16:27:10 Title: Comment details - PFWG Public Comments (at www.w3.org)
16:27:30 issue-32?
16:27:30 ISSUE-32 -- how to provide a summary of a table, e.g. for unsighted navigation? -- OPEN
16:27:30 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32
16:27:31 Title: ISSUE-32 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
16:27:32 topic: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32
16:27:37 (I concur with a point dbaron made: having groups talk to each other with low latency isn't as good as having individuals get together and talk. There's a time for formal group-to-group stuff, but it should be the exception, not the rule)
16:28:35 murray: great compromise
16:29:09 murray: thanks the people involved
16:29:11 q+
16:29:20 s/the/to the/
16:29:26 ack julian
16:29:46 Julian: from my point of view the spec is far away from expressing consensus
16:29:46 adrianba has joined #html-wg
16:29:52 Julian: I would vote for John's draft
16:29:54 q+
16:30:13 q+
16:30:21 ack mjs
16:30:26 gsnedders_ has joined #html-wg
16:30:29 julian: not satisfied with the compromise
16:30:36 I agree with Julian, FWIW
16:30:37 (I continue to see shelly object, but I gather she's already made her argument and doesn't feel a need to repeat it. Does anybody have a pointer to something that captures her concerns?)
16:30:51 s/shelly/shelley/
16:31:15 zakim, mute me
16:31:15 kliehm should now be muted
16:31:30 mjs: asks people to look at the text,. avoiding a vote
16:31:50 Laura has joined #html-wg
16:31:50 I think it is astounding how much debate it took to get this far, and it makes me querstion whether the group is ready to reach last call on schedule
16:32:05 John's recap saying table summary is an open question:
16:32:11 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0286.html
16:32:12 Title: Movement on summary from John Foliot on 2009-08-06 (public-html@w3.org from August 2009) (at lists.w3.org)
16:32:14 mjs: explains the "should"
16:32:18 Steve saying the @summary text is adequate for now but doesn't see it making last call.
16:32:19 q+
16:32:25 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0302.html
16:32:26 Title: Re: summary attribute compromise proposal from Steven Faulkner on 2009-08-06 (public-html@w3.org from August 2009) (at lists.w3.org)
16:32:38 Me asking to have summary in the draft marked as open. Sam previously said it is the proper way to handle it.
16:32:44 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0315.html
16:32:45 Title: Re: summary attribute compromise proposal from Laura Carlson on 2009-08-06 (public-html@w3.org from August 2009) (at lists.w3.org)
16:32:52 Sam saying @summary is "well on its way" to being closed.
16:32:53 FWIW I don't see any substantial change from the current text taking us closer to a maxima of acceptability
16:33:00 http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/08/06/Disappearing-Silverware
16:33:01 Title: Sam Ruby: Disappearing Silverware (at intertwingly.net)
16:33:07 Shelley calling it "painting people into a corner".
16:33:13 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0317.html
16:33:14 Title: Re: summary attribute compromise proposal from Shelley Powers on 2009-08-06 (public-html@w3.org from August 2009) (at lists.w3.org)
16:33:20 Leif suggesting that we should have Sam's support for *keeping* it marked as an open.
16:33:20 example of difficulties of coming to consensus on authoring conformance requirements
16:33:21 mjs: says it's not obsolete (?)
16:33:25 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0319.html
16:33:26 Title: Re: summary attribute compromise proposal from Leif Halvard Silli on 2009-08-06 (public-html@w3.org from August 2009) (at lists.w3.org)
16:33:32 ack masinter
16:33:41 masinter: issue not addressed
16:34:35 masinter: general underlying problem with conformance requirements
16:34:47 Title: Re: summary attribute compromise proposal from Shelley Powers on 2009-08-04 (public-html@w3.org from August 2009) (at lists.w3.org)
16:34:51 q+
16:35:04 q+
16:35:10 masinter: discouraged by compromise and time spent on it
16:35:40 Matt_May: some of the uncontroversial
16:36:07 Matt_May: there are also design considerations
16:36:36 Matt_May: "obsolete, but conforming" will cause more discussions
16:36:40 -Laura
16:37:06 Matt_May: keep the advice, but no warning needed
16:37:26 +Cynthia_Shelly
16:37:46 q-
16:37:49 q+ murray
16:37:57 ack matt_may
16:37:57 ack next
16:38:07 I agree with Matt was saying
16:38:51 cshelly has joined #html-wg
16:39:03 q+
16:39:23 +1
16:39:29 +1
16:39:34 dsinger: explains that there's a meta-problem behind @summary
16:39:35 (to dsinger)
16:39:42 ack mjs
16:40:17 mjs: asks masinter to clarify his concern
16:40:27 masinter: see Julian's mail
16:40:37 ack murray
16:40:39 (+1 to what, cshelly and annevk?)
16:41:02 (I mentioned that in my next line, DanC)
16:41:03 +1 to dsinger
16:41:14 I belivee that they were +1'ing the notion of the chairs getting together and working out the progress (dsinger's comment)
16:41:18 tx
16:41:22 s/belivee/believe/
16:41:34 s/progress/process/
16:42:18 murray: repeats that helping access. for tables is important
16:42:51 murray: don't prematurely obsolete
16:43:09 murray: lots of work to do left
16:43:22 ack Cynthia_Shelly
16:43:26 ack cshelly
16:43:40 I'd like to note again for the record that the text does *not* make the summary attribute obsolete
16:43:49 cshelly: new text ok for next draft
16:44:09 q+ on the issue of publishing Working Drafts in the future
16:44:13 mjs, it appears in "12.1 Conforming but obsolete features". Why?
16:44:43 Julian, that's the section that defines all the warnings in the spec
16:44:47 -Stevef
16:44:54 Julian_ has joined #html-wg
16:45:12 cshelly: PFWG happy with process
16:45:13