See also: IRC log
Jim: thank you for your feedback those that sent it. These will be fed back to the HTML5 working group.
Simon: Will my comments from a while ago be included?
... The more I read it the more the spec changes. If you have more comments please send them in.
Jim: Thanks Simon for proposing
this - what a user agent really is and how we can figure it
... Proposal one adding test conditions to the Definition of User Agent.
Mark: People will take web browser components and host it in another web based desktop application. From the end user perspective they may and may not recognize that a UA is in their desktop app.
Jeanne: Doesn't point 3 cover that?
Mark: I don't believe it does...
Jim: Like Windows Explorer where you can type a URL to browse your desktop and a web page can open inside it.
Mark: Yes. Also a desktop app that displays Help by a browser control.
Jim: That's not really embedded, the Help app is like a local UA. They render local content but have links to other content.
Mark: Look at Java apps that embed content...
Simon: Like ActiveX I imagine.
You could read it as that thing is an extension or plugin to
... The UA has to be able to interpret web content.
... Could we say include library functions or plugins or extensions to this?
Mark: The UA is a plugin to other kinds of development language which is not a W3C standards...I'm not so happy with that.
Simon: Could say if it's not stand alone then would that fit what a plugin would be.
Mark: If it is standa alone, embedded or hosted in another app.
Simpon: If anything interprets W3C standards then it is a UA.
Mark: But what about primary.
Jim: Is a hosted user agent be hosted by something that is not a UA?
Mark: Yes, like a security analysis tool.
Simon: On number one could say if it is a stand alone app or a component of an app?
Jim: ...need to add in must interpret W3C langiage
<AllanJ> scribe_nick: iheni
Kim: I like the conclusion with an agent or component of an app.
Jeanne: Should it include other
languages than W3C languages?
... as these are guidelines and not specs we can extend beyond W3C. Adobe are working hard to meet WCAG for Flash.
<AllanJ> go kelly
<AllanJ> "If it is a standalone application or a component of an application"
<kford_> How do we want to address applications that can display web content but where it isn't the main purpose? For example, word, Excel and such and display web content. Are these just user agents by this definition?
Mark: What Jim typed covers Kelly's comment.
<AllanJ> kelly, do you agree with - "If it is a standalone application or a component of an application (such as excel)?
<kford_> I think component I guess.
<kford_> Yes, I cna agree there.
Jim: Mark and David, sounds like you are saying the same thing (looking at the survey comments)
Mark: Not quite the same.
<AllanJ> David--any comments?
Jim: Jeanne any ideas on phrasing for expanding W3C language?
Jeanne: It could be deleted.
Jim: Then what distinguishes a UA from any other app, liek Word?
Jeanne: I see this as a test on top of our existing definition.
Simon: Renders or retrieves...could be does it use HTTP or file: Need to think of anything within W3C domain?
Jeanne: What about a UA in flex or Silverlight?
Simon: Flex is Flash. Does Flex
have to meet UA guidelines because it uses a transport
protocol. Flex to me is bespoke, not an open standard.
... If Flex is built into the UA then it is caught but if not then not sure what we are trying to define.
Jim: Even if written in Flex the 3rd condition covers it?
Jeanne: It is excluded by the first one.
Simon: If we modify item to to interpret 'or' users...
Jeanne: Good change, it eventually gets covered in HTML.
Jim: Is Flex covered in 3 - generated UA.
Jeanne: Not sure if with the 'and's' in the 3 steps they would consider themselves excluded.
Jim: They may think they are excluded by point 1 but not by point 3.
<AllanJ> change 2. If it interprets or uses any w3c specified language
Simon: W3C specification or recommendation...
<AllanJ> change 2. If it interprets or uses any w3c recommendations
<kford_> OK to me.
<AllanJ> kelly ?? ok with this
Jim: Part 3: If it provides a user interface or interprets either a procedural or declarative language that may be used to provide a user interface.
<AllanJ> Proposed: If the following three conditions are met then it is a Primary User Agent and Must Conform to UAAG:
<AllanJ> 1) If it is a standalone application or component of an application; and
All: No problem.
<AllanJ> 2) If it interprets or uses any w3c recommendations; and
<AllanJ> 3) If it provides a user interface or interprets either a procedural or declarative language that may be used to provide a user interface.
<jeanne> RESOLUTION: Accept the above text as an addition to the definition of User Agent
<AllanJ> Resolved:: If the following three conditions are met then it is a Primary User Agent and Must Conform to UAAG: 1) If it is a standalone application or component of an application; and 2) If it interprets or uses any w3c recommendations; and 3) If it provides a user interface or interprets either a procedural or declarative language that may be used to provide a user interface.
<sharper> RESOLVED: If the following three conditions are met then it is a Primary User Agent and Must Conform to UAAG: 1) If it is a standalone application or component of an application; and 2) If it interprets or uses any w3c recommendations; and 3) If it provides a user interface or interprets either a procedural or declarative language that may be used to provide a user interface.
Jim: 2. proposal for defining a
plugin or extension of a User Agent.
... Jeanne and I have questions about embedded players
Simon: Links to PDF trigger UA to
launch PDF in the UA so is within the bounds of this but not if
opens in own app.
... If a link goes to it's stand alone app it's not in our remit, this is ISO but if in the UA then it is. Wanted to make that differentiation.
Jim: 1 refers to add blocks or
any other extension item that becomes part of the UA.
... 2 refers to embedded stuff which is hard to figure out.
Kim: Kind of makes sense, not that clear.
Jim: Simon can you rewrite 2? Seems to miss it.
Simon: If after activation the UA becomes part of or in the bounds of the UA.
Here is the original Kelly: If the following two conditions are met then it is a User Agent Extension or Plug-In and Must Conform to UAAG:
1) If it is launched by, or extends the functionality of, a Primary User Agent; and
2) If post-launch user interaction either becomes part of, or is within the bounds of, the Primary User Agent.
Simon: So what is the definition of a plugin?
Mark: Plugin has a status in the Windows status bar as Opera does for IRC.
<AllanJ> go kelly
<kford_> Minor, part in rereading, what's the point of "primary"
Mark: The plugin is operable in the UA but extended out of the bounds of the browser.
<kford_> as in primary user agent? Primary is just confusing.
Mark: A chat plugin in a web page that provides status info via a task bar icon in Windows. So you have a plugin that runs in the UA but also extends beyond the UA so use of the term "within the bounds" does not include this situation.
Kim: How about ise "interacts with"?
Simon: Do UA guidelines need to be applied to this thing...all functionality and status must be accessible no matter where it is.
Simon: We need to apply to this plugin same standards as a primary UA, as in Mozilla.
Mark: The term 'in the bounds' limits this.
Kim: How about 'interact with'
Simon: So if I click on PDF and
it launched Acrobat then UAAG applies to these? If it looks
like it is part of interaction of the browser then we need to
look at that, if not then this is ISO.
... Could be the same for Word...
Jim: So if it opens a separate app it's not our problem. But if it's inside the viewport, or embedded in the viewport and looks to the user like it is my browser then it needs to conform.
Kim: what if something opens in
another app and is web content but wont open in the browser or
in one browser...
... If it is web content should it be available in an accessible way.
Jim: It has to be within the
viewport or of the agent. It has to open outside in a separate
UA instance to apply.
... Kelly asked why are we using 'primary' it seems confusing.
<AllanJ> ACTION: JAllan to word smith If post-launch user interaction either becomes part of, or is within the bounds of, the Primary User Agent. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/27-ua-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-223 - Word smith If post-launch user interaction either becomes part of, or is within the bounds of, the Primary User Agent. [on Jim Allan - due 2009-09-03].
<sharper> If after activation user interaction either becomes part of, or is within the viewport of, the Primary User Agent.
Simon: I felt that there was obvious ones that could be differentiated. Such as primary versus web based (latter being proposed new wording)
<sharper> Any good?
<kford_> I just think primary muddies the water needlessly.
Simon: Happy for 'primary' to change.
<kford_> Just delete.
<AllanJ> kelly, proposal for other language
Simon: Maybe a different definition...
Mark: I can live with primary.
<kford_> No other language. Just say user agent.
Simon: If people prefer just user agent...
Jeanne: Primary is another layer of confusion but I don't have a better suggestion.
Jim: I'll look at this and let's move on.
Simon: see 'If after activation user interaction either becomes part of, or is within the viewport of, the Primary User Agent'.
Jim: I will look at this.
... 3: proposal for test conditions for Generated User Agent
If the following three conditions are met then it is a Generated User Agent (with inaccessible interface) and Must Conform to UAAG:
1) If the user interface is generated by the interpretation of either a procedural or declarative language; and
2) If this interpretation is by a Primary User Agent, User Agent Extension or Plug-In; and
3) If user interaction is not passed to and from the Primary User Agent, User Agent Extension or Plug-In, or if user interaction does not modify the Document Object Model of its containing document.
Simon: I was thinking of Google
Docs, widgets etc when I wrote this. If it doesn't modify the
DOM then the idea is that it conforms to UAAG. If it does
update the DOM then it is not a UA that has to conform to
... Could be xfroms pr anything declarative, Ruby...
Jim: Mark said can this have an accessible interface?
Simon: if it doesn't modify the DOM to have access to it / modify it then it is creating an inaccessible interface as it is consuming input but not allowing the UA to pass information to AT. Therefore it has to provide this itself...
Jim: This covers Java running inside a UA then the Java parser must provide enough into back out...
Simon: covers canvas...kind of.
Mark: is inaccessible applicable in the definition?
Simon: I only used it as an
example of consuming input...
... Is Google docs accessible?
... It doesn't pass on everything.
Jim: Java falls in here together
... Bad Web 2.0 apps that don't talk to AT.
Simon: 2 dimension drawing in canvas.
Jim: Let's take it to the list...thanks all.
<AllanJ> title: User Agent Working Group
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: iheni Inferring Scribes: iheni Default Present: Jeanne, AllanJ, Kim, IHenni, sharper, MTH Present: Jeanne AllanJ Kim IHenni sharper MTH Regrets: JanR KellyF Jan dtseng WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Got date from IRC log name: 27 Aug 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/08/27-ua-minutes.html People with action items: jallan WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]