<paulc> ACTIONs 131, 138, 145 and 158
PC: Chairs propose to assign actions to the a11y task force
... TF is getting going and makes sense to assign there
<rubys> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2009OctDec/0015.html
PC: does the task force have its own tracker/issues list
<MikeSmith> we did decide to set up a Tracker
janina: think we will have that but not operational yet
MC: a11ytf will be keyword
janina: only used for issues formally assigned to tf
PC: any objections to TF taking these issues?
<kliehm> currently the (inofficial?) keyword is pfwg
<oedipus> plus 1
PC: no objections heard
RESOLUTION: mikesmith or janina to ensure a11y TF take issues 131, 138, 145, and 158.
<paulc> Move the actions to the TF Tracker when it is created.
<paulc> ACTIONs 137, 144 and 152
<trackbot> ACTION-137 -- Larry Masinter to update IRI spec based on comments to Public-IRI (Including those from HTML-WG members), -- due 2009-10-21 -- PENDINGREVIEW
PC: chairs propose these actions can be closed although issues not finished with
<trackbot> ACTION-138 -- Steve Faulkner to produce a matrix based on Henri's work -- due 2009-10-08 -- OPEN
<trackbot> ACTION-152 -- Maciej Stachowiak to check on Change Proposal for dt/dd semantics -- due 2009-11-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW
PC: any objections to closing?
<trackbot> ACTION-144 -- Manu Sporny to update a separate spec for profile attribute -- due 2009-10-29 -- PENDINGREVIEW
RESOLUTION: we will close ACTION items 137, 144 and 152
ACTION-127?
<trackbot> ACTION-127 -- Paul Cotton to establish process for "official WG response" to other WG's RFC on LC drafts -- due 2009-10-01 -- OPEN
<oedipus> 137, 144 and 152
PC: we had some comments on MathML 3.0 and discussion of official procedure
... chairs will propose a process
... this will cover future last call comments
... continue to work on ongoing process for dealing with other last call for commments
<paulc> LC: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Nov/0394.html
PC: some discussion of XHTML entity definitions
... if anyone interested in reviewing spec then make comments directly
ACTION-155?
<trackbot> ACTION-155 -- Maciej Stachowiak to send CFC for review of decision policy -- due 2009-10-29 -- OPEN
PC: CfC closed on Nov 10 without objections
PC: declaring this our procedure
... did get one request for clarification from plh
<paulc> Comment in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Nov/0367.html
PC: chairs are going to provide a clarification
... this wasn't an objection, just a clarification about when an editor makes a change
... it's possible for commenter to object
... plh asked if it is valid for someone else to object
... the sentiment is that this would be okay
... this will be made clear in the doc
PC: 2 stage process - is the item important enough to track, then should we add to tracker
... action on kai to document uses cases on a web page
... these don't have action numbers
http://www.w3.org/2009/11/05-html-wg-minutes.html#action03
SR: this was about 3d graphics, not sure who to assign to
PC: is this important enough to track?
... answer could be no
... by default won't track
not going to track this one
PC: next, action on tony ross about extensibility
<trackbot> ACTION-159 -- Adrian Bateman to document Extensibility Use Case for Editors on Wiki -- due 2009-12-10 -- OPEN
PC: next, action on arron
KK: this is action on arron for testing
<kris> ball rolling -> see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-testsuite/2009Nov/0001.html
KK: don't have a tracker yet but we are moving
PC: already being taken care, of move on
... cs and fo to talk about focus work in microsoft
CS: this is action on me
SR: should this go to a11y TF?
PC: this does go to TF
... can you get mike smith to help
... doug to send out instructions for cvs
<kris> Done - see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-testsuite/2009Nov/0003.html
KK: this was for testing
... but this has been done
PC: sw to talk about focus at Apple
CS: this is the same as the microsoft one
... but the person assigned to might not be in TF
PC: please work with maciej to resolve this
<dsinger> probably James Craig
PC: want to remind working group that proposals were issued for:
<paulc> Issues- 4, 7, 14, 30, 63 are due on Dec 3
PC: due dec 3
<paulc> Proposal on Issue 30 is available.
PC: we have one proposal available on issue-30?
<trackbot> ISSUE-30 -- Should HTML 5 include a longdesc attribute for images -- RAISED
<paulc> Also issue 76 proposal due on Dec 3
PC: make sure clear especially without meeting next week
... that issues without a proposal will be closed without prejudice at next meeting
issue-14?
<trackbot> ISSUE-14 -- Integration of WAI-ARIA roles into HTML5 -- RAISED
PC: not seen any objection yet so proposing issue-14 can be closed
... this was call for consensus closed on nov 12
<oedipus> plus 1 to closing issue 14 - subsumed by A11y TF work
CS: issue-35 deals with changes to way integrated
PC: this wouldn't impact this issue
RESOLUTION: close issue-14
<trackbot> ISSUE-14 Integration of WAI-ARIA roles into HTML5 closed
PC: chairs identified 6 new issues
... to make call for
PC: expect to see all these soon
... some already done
... working on both old ones and some more recent
... this will close on dec 17 which is last meeting in dec
PC: accessibility first
... information for wg at high level about TF status
... e.g. when you expect to come back to wg with some possible resolutions
janina: facilitators met a couple of times
... setting up conf call times, tracker, etc
... seriously working from start of december
... informational announcement will be sent later today with more detail
... one of the early things will be the video activity
... they are already underway thanks to meeting before tpac
PC: do you have an idea about order of work?
janina: we discussed a little but haven't a plan yet
... go after low hanging fruit first
CS: sent change proposal for summary today
... need to figure out relationship to TF
janina: do have a wiki set-up
<kliehm> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Main_Page
janina: will want to migrate content here
<pimpbot> Title: Main Page - HTML accessibility task force Wiki (at www.w3.org)
janina: if anyone wants to start now then go ahead
<oedipus> GJR will be advancing a proposal for porting ESW materials to new HTML A11y TF wiki
...PC: cynthia, can you reply to message and explain where discussion will take place
<oedipus> GJR currently coordinating with volunteers to port ESW content
...PC: this will help record what happened here
CS: ok
<MikeSmith> nothing else I can think of to add
MC: topic about when we take up when should be job of TF not facilitators
PC: have you picked a slot for telcon?
MC: not yet but soon
<paulc> REMINDER: Accessibility TF members should indicate their preference for a telcon time and day of week.
<paulc> Poll closes on Fri Nov 20
PC: kris, what about testing task force
KK: infrastructure is coming along
... next steps are getting agreement in TF for a test template
... expecting to come back to wg in Jan 2010 to get review of this template
PC: when will you come back with a proposal for work the wg needs to do?
KK: early Jan
PC: agenda is done
<oedipus> re Accessibility Task Force meeting time (poll closes today) - http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/showq#x44061
<paulc> We are NOT meeting next week.
PC: reminder, no meeting next week
... next meeting is dec 3
PC: sam will chair next time
<paulc> Scribe for Dec 3?
PC: any scribe volunteer?
<paulc> paul will be on vacation nov 22-Dec 7
<paulc> Regrets for Dec 3 from paul
PC: reminder, first batch of call for proposals will expire after dec 3
CS: what about things moved to TF?
<oedipus> HTML WG ISSUE 4, 7, 14, 30, 63 comments due December 3 2009
<oedipus> HTML WG ISSUE 1, 2, 10, 27, 87, 88 review due 17 December 2009
PC: that was an action, wasn't it?
... thinks the question, when we have proposals related to issues when will they become issues for discussion
... discussion will happen until ready for CfC
... issues with proposals won't be closed at deadline
... when we have the proposals then we know the issue is open with a concrete proposal
... then we can work on getting consensus for the issues with proposal
... this may involve a counter-proposal
<rubys> +1
mjs: thinks this is right
PC: adjournment?
... adjourned