See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 11 March 2010
<MikeSmith> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Mar/0186.html
<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Scribe_List
<MichaelC> Meeting: HTML-A11Y telecon
<oedipus> FYI canvas subgroup telecon minutes (2010-03-08)
<oedipus> FYI canvas subgroup telecon minutes (2010-03-08) http://www.w3.org/2010/03/08-html-a11y-minutes.html
<MichaelC> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Mar/0186.html
<MikeSmith> scribe: Stevef
<oedipus> canvas subgroup telecon minutes (2010-03-08) http://www.w3.org/2010/03/08-html-a11y-minutes.html
Mike: navsubtree has greater agreement at this point, anyone object to sending ot html wg for wider review
<oedipus> discussion of ADom and imagemap approaches: http://www.w3.org/2010/03/08-html-a11y-minutes.html#item02
janina: will be couple of additional pieces coming later including focus proposal
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/canvasaccessibility
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/Map4NotAdom
<oedipus> rich's proposal email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-canvas-api/2010JanMar/0276.html
rich: 2 other proposals 1 focus and caret tracking and image map 2. image map, need to work on with chaals,
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/12
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/19
mike: record a resolution to put
navsubtree proposal forward, and give people 48 hours to
object, but needs more wider discussion
... will put in language for proposed resolution as placeholder
until agreed
<MikeSmith> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The a11y TF resolves that the canvas navsubtree proposal is ready for wider review by the HTML WG, with the understanding that the a11y TF supports it principle and the related proposals needed to fully resolve the issue are still under discussion and will be forthcoming.
<oedipus> plus 1
<richardschwerdtfe> +1
<oedipus> plus 1 with removal of "in principle"
<inserted> scribnick: oedipus
<inserted> scribenick: oedipus
SF: Rich asking for change proposal for HTML WG wiki? this is spec ready text, right?
RS: Maciej said need justification for why we are doing it on the wiki
<MikeSmith> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The a11y TF resolves that the canvas navsubtree proposal is ready for wider review by the HTML WG, with the understanding that the a11y TF supports it and that related proposals needed to fully resolve the issue are still under discussion and will be brought to the HTML WG later.
SF: i can create the necessary wiki page -- then get input required for rationale
MS: do need the wiki page, if you can volunteer, it would be great
SF: will mock it up today
RS: SteveF, you'll set up
SF: yes -- will send URI to TF list -- need to reveiew rationale to ensure has all required info
RS: reveiw period?
MS: 48 hours
RS: ok
MC: 48 hour period -- web based survey or call for objections on mailing list
<MikeSmith> RESOLUTION: The a11y TF resolves that the canvas navsubtree proposal is ready for wider review by the HTML WG, with the understanding that the a11y TF supports it and that related proposals needed to fully resolve the issue are still under discussion and will be brought to the HTML WG later.
MS: call for objections on
list
... action for SteveF to write up change proposal in way HTML
WG requires
<inserted> scribenick: Stevef
mike: rich please update us
<oedipus> RESOLVED: The a11y TF resolves that the canvas navsubtree proposal is ready for wider review by the HTML WG, with the understanding that the a11y TF supports it and that related proposals needed to fully resolve the issue are still under discussion and will be brought to the HTML WG later.
Rich: 1 tried to be inline with 2d spec, merged caret/focus. and maciej had same concern , asking to spereate caret out. bit in spec about who draws focus ring waiting for clarification. will then write proposal update, hopeing to have it ready in the next couple of weeks
<oedipus> SF: need clarification from hixie
<oedipus> RS: sent to maciej - first canvas implementation by apple
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/multitrack-api/results
mike: eric please summarise state of agreement
eric: sylvia sent out a summary
of things that need to be changed in the spec in regards to
multitrack api
... believe it had consensus
mike: to do resolution
<oedipus> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Mar/0177.html
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/text-associations/
<MikeSmith> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The a11y TF resolves that the Multitrack API proposal -- after Silvia makes the changes she outlined by e-mail -- is ready for wider review by the HTML WG, with the understanding that the a11y TF supports it and that related proposals needed to fully resolve the related issue are still under discussion and will be brought to the HTML WG later.
<oedipus> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Mar/0178.html
<MikeSmith> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Mar/0199.html <- Dick's message
dick: minority opinion re tracks proposal, form our SMIL experienece, things being merged, not particularly clean and locks into approach, should decouple slection and synchronization, proposal doesn't handle it cleanly, not a wise combination from SMIL experienec
<MikeSmith> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Mar/0203.html <- Philip's reply
eric: i don't think we are too far down the path to change, if something else makes more sens, maybe we hold of on sending to html wg to discuss further
<oedipus> plus 1 to eric
janina: also would like discussion on TF call before sending to WG
eric: hoped people who had an opinion would have jumped in on mailing list discussion
dick: will provide SMIL examples
of approach, design philosophy
... do not want to obstruct but think there are things current
proposal does not cover
mike: more discussion is good, so
go for it
... better to take more mature proposal
eric: issue will come up so need to talk more
Mike: would be nice to expidite
it and value in getting wider discussion
... will look at it start of next week status check
mike: text association proposal, eric summary?
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/media-text-format/?
eric: sylvia went through all emails, summarised issues that need to eb addressed before we send to wider group, not a long list of changes
<oedipus> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Mar/0177.html
<MikeSmith> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Mar/0177.html
mike: more discussion on formats
is neceserry, will need to move file formats from change
request
... some people won't support this
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_TextAssociations
mike: we have a choice, the file
formats part is what we don't have agreement on, but sylvia
thinks this won't happen soon, so remove from proposal
... anybody on the call today object from removing the formats
section for now?
<oedipus> sylvia: "not clear what requirements would necessitate more than just srt - I am planning on a separate discussion thread as soon as the format survey is closed. For now we will probably need to remove the section about file formats from the change request "
eric: if we remove ot from the propsoal, have to have wording to say why , with a goal to coming up with some format requirment as this will never fly unless we have some sort of format reuirement
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/text-associations/
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/text-associations/results
dick: formatting issue, what is
mandated, needs to be a set of requirements for short to middle
term, other part of proposal from my perspective links
selection and synchronization together same problem as
previouys
... many synchronization concerns glossed over, have these
things been talked about, are we interetsed in feedback?
mike: does seem we have agreement that the requirements aren't clear, what would neccesitate more than SRT, does not ste what format is needed
<oedipus> FWIW: strongly believe that the popularity of SRT is NOT a reason for it to supersede other formats in HTML5; its widespread use warrants consideration for its inclusion but NOT at the expense of other formats -- especially SmilText -- which support advanced text-display features which are NOT part of SRT
mike: if we do remove then put disclaimer in to say that this cannot be implemented unless we decide on formats. we are waiting on sylvia to change proposal
dick: multicolored text, or styled text has this disucssion taken place or have the issues been resolved
eric: don't think we have had discussions about whether styling is a requirement
GeoffF: need to discuss these to resiolve format issue, i think to move things forward good idea to move format discussion out of current proposal
mike: need to list iut the potential set of format requirements, but it is pretty clear the proposal is not ready, take some more time, sylvia needs to make chnages and back out to list for more discussion
dick: can this be discussed at f2f
mike: yes we can, nee to discuss f2f agenda
<paulc> the TF should have a concrete plan to decide what to do at the F2F and what NOT to do at the F2F and will be done separately.
dick: don't know who is going to be there
mike: f2f agenda planning:
topics?
... jeff will not be ther inperson, but via phone, eric will be
there, philip from opera may not be there
... should be high on agenda, but may not get much done if
right people are not attending
... MC , JS agendas?
<MikeSmith> paulc, can you speak briefly on the call today to give some suggestions about how best to plan for the f2f?
janina: list of topcs, may be useful to look at the list, also poepl to adopt items from list
<MichaelC> Topic List
cyns: is API mapping on there/
paulC; how is it that mapping is an issue?
cyns: indivdiual bugs for individual issues
<paulc> See http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/138
<oedipus> SF: been response to some of statement of issues; some sorted, some unsorted; action for production of matrix still in progress; will work on it second day of PF face2face at CSUN
<oedipus> CS: easier to do in person
<paulc> If this action is generating bugs rather than related to existing bugs that is a good explanation.
can somebody scribe now, i have to go
oedipus??
<oedipus> scribenick: oedipus
<paulc> Paul suggests that the facilitators clearly define what issues will be on the F2F agenda and what actions the TF plans to take at the F2F.
MS: trying to figure out if specific action anyone can take on f2f planning; Janina and i need to get proposed agenda out A.S.A.P.; prior to that, more specific info about what needed to do to get agenda ready?
CS: phone bridge?
MC: made sure is a possibility for them
CS: can't travel to england that week
JS: there is a U.K. phone number to access Zakim
MS: Cooper, anything else to do in last 7 minutes to get closer to prep for f2f
CS: something that might help is to ask those who can't attend or call in to submit position paper or similar if want to make point; find a champion who is attending
JS: list that MSmit read off --
first half have tackled and are at some stage of
resulution
... bottom half of list haven't started on at all -- some of
those might move forward if can get volunteers to come up with
proposals
MS: sounds possible; worry about adding more stuff to f2f discussion plans because don't want it to be overwhelming;
<paulc> I have to leave to get ready to scribe the HTML WG meeting. Thanks.
MS: adding more topics may risk productivity
JS: long, prolonged controversial items, yes, but some low-hanging fruit like headers/id, and summary
MS: have starting point for list
of f2f topics
... paul advised to distill down to specific topics
... about to loose a lot of partipants due to commencement of
HTML WG telecon
... Janina, chair next week?
JS: yes; may be a lot of people missing in 2 weeks due to CSUN
MS: will be in cambridge, mass on 25 march 2010
JS: try to hold meeting or skip?
MS: decide next week
... make agenda item for next week -- meeting on 25 march
2010
JS: reminder - U.S. goes to Daylight Savings Time on Sunday, 14 march 2010 - meetings an hour earlier (w3c time pegged to E.S.T.)
CS: unable to participate much before CSUN
MS: ADJOURN
[ADJOURNED]
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) Succeeded: i/SF: Rich asking for change/scribnick: oedipus Succeeded: i/mike: rich please update/scribenick: Stevef Succeeded: i/SF: Rich asking for change/scribenick: oedipus Succeeded: s/wbgh: need to/GeoffF: need to/ Succeeded: s/mike@ f2f/mike: f2f/ Found Scribe: Stevef Inferring ScribeNick: Stevef Found ScribeNick: oedipus Found ScribeNick: Stevef Found ScribeNick: oedipus ScribeNicks: Stevef, oedipus Default Present: Janina, Stevef, Michael_Cooper, Mike, Gregory_Rosmaita, Dick_Bulterman, Rich, Eric_Carlson, Matt, Ben_Caldwell, paulc, +1.617.300.aaaa, Geoff_Freed, Mike_Barta Present: Ben_Caldwell Dick_Bulterman Eric_Carlson Geoff_Freed Gregory_Rosmaita Janina Matt Michael_Cooper Mike Mike_Barta Rich Stevef paulc Regrets: Kelly_Ford Aurélien_Levy Jon_Gunderson Markku_Hakkinen Denis_Boudreau Laura_Carlson Marco_Ranon Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Mar/0186.html Found Date: 11 Mar 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/03/11-html-a11y-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]