IRC log of au on 2011-10-24
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 18:52:46 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #au
- 18:52:46 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/10/24-au-irc
- 18:53:07 [Jan]
- Zakim, this will be AUWG
- 18:53:07 [Zakim]
- ok, Jan; I see WAI_AUWG()3:00PM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
- 18:59:07 [Zakim]
- WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has now started
- 18:59:14 [Zakim]
- +Jeanne
- 18:59:29 [jeanne]
- jeanne has joined #au
- 18:59:31 [Jan]
- Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0038.html
- 18:59:51 [Jan]
- Scribe: Jan
- 19:00:06 [Jan]
- Chair: Jutta Treviranus
- 19:00:13 [Jan]
- Chair: Jan Richards
- 19:00:31 [Jan]
- Regrets: Jutta T.
- 19:00:53 [Zakim]
- +[Microsoft]
- 19:01:16 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 19:01:18 [jeanne]
- zakim, Microsoft is Alex
- 19:01:18 [Zakim]
- +Alex; got it
- 19:02:19 [Jan]
- zakim, [IPcaller] is really Jan
- 19:02:19 [Zakim]
- +Jan; got it
- 19:03:22 [Zakim]
- + +1.571.765.aaaa
- 19:03:36 [jeanne]
- zakim, aaaa is Greg
- 19:03:36 [Zakim]
- +Greg; got it
- 19:05:07 [Greg]
- Greg has joined #au
- 19:05:20 [Greg]
- Hello Zakim
- 19:05:41 [Jan]
- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results
- 19:05:45 [Jan]
- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024
- 19:06:32 [Zakim]
- +Sueann
- 19:09:57 [Jan]
- scribe: jeanne
- 19:10:32 [Jan]
- Topic: 1. Last call comments (due Sept 15)
- 19:11:32 [Jan]
- Topic: 2. Actions arising from last week:
- 19:11:42 [Jan]
- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results
- 19:11:55 [Jan]
- Topic: reversible actions
- 19:11:58 [jeanne]
- Jan: PF accepted our changes to the last draft in responses to their cvomments
- 19:12:04 [Jan]
- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq9
- 19:13:14 [Jan]
- A reversible authoring action is an authoring action that can be immediately and completely undone by the authoring tool upon a cancel request by an author. Examples of cancel requests include: "cancel", "undo", ("redo" when it used to reverse "undo"), "revert", "roll-back".
- 19:13:19 [jeanne]
- Greg: If there is revert or rollback, that should also be included
- 19:15:01 [jeanne]
- ... the revert is to a last saved point, so it would not be a sequential reverse of actions.
- 19:15:27 [jeanne]
- JR: At the minimum level, it can be a revert. At the AAA it is a sequential reversal.
- 19:16:21 [jeanne]
- AL: But the SC hasn't changed?
- 19:16:24 [Sueann]
- Sueann has joined #au
- 19:16:34 [jeanne]
- JR: The SC has changed. The notes have moved to the definition
- 19:18:06 [Zakim]
- +Tim_Boland
- 19:20:12 [jeanne]
- RESOLUTION: Accept the above wording
- 19:20:39 [Jan]
- Resolution: All accept reversible actions changes from "http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq9" with added examples, revert etc
- 19:20:54 [Jan]
- Topic: term "authoring action" in to the preview defn note
- 19:21:00 [Jan]
- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq10
- 19:21:31 [Tim]
- Tim has joined #au
- 19:22:36 [jeanne]
- JR: changed to discriminate between editable authoring actions and testing author action
- 19:22:59 [Jan]
- Views in which no authoring actions are provided. Typically, the purpose of previews is to present content as it would appear to end-users of user agents. In these cases, previews may be implemented using existing user agents or they may attempt to emulate some user agent functionality.
- 19:24:40 [Jan]
- Views in which no authoring actions are provided (i.e., the view is not editable). Typically, the purpose of previews is to present content as it would appear to end-users of user agents. In these cases, previews may be implemented using existing user agents or they may attempt to emulate some user agent functionality.
- 19:25:07 [jeanne]
- JS: I think we should keep "editable" because some people may consider testing a preview page as an authoring action
- 19:25:08 [Jan]
- Resolution: All accept: Views in which no authoring actions are provided (i.e., the view is not editable). Typically, the purpose of previews is to present content as it would appear to end-users of user agents. In these cases, previews may be implemented using existing user agents or they may attempt to emulate some user agent functionality.
- 19:25:21 [Jan]
- programmatically determined
- 19:25:27 [Jan]
- Topic: programmatically determined
- 19:25:36 [Jan]
- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq11
- 19:27:24 [jeanne]
- JR: I added the note.
- 19:27:30 [jeanne]
- AL: That looks fine to me.
- 19:27:39 [Jan]
- Resolution: All accept "Note: In ATAG 2.0, some success criteria require authoring tools to make certain information programmatically determinable. In cases where the platform lacks a platform accessibility service, these success criteria are to be considered "not applicable". Conformance claims are optional, but any claim that is made must record the platform and the fact that the platform...
- 19:27:41 [Jan]
- ...does not include a platform accessibility service. "
- 19:27:52 [Jan]
- Topic: A.2.2.1 Editing-View Status Information
- 19:27:59 [Jan]
- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq4
- 19:30:49 [Jan]
- AL: looks ok to me
- 19:34:41 [Jan]
- SN: Seems reasonable
- 19:34:50 [Jan]
- Resolution: All agree with "A.2.2.1 Editing-View Status Indicators: If an editing-view adds status indicators to the content being edited, then the status messages being indicated can be programmatically determined. Note: Status indicators may indicate errors (e.g. spelling errors), tracked changes, hidden elements, or other information. "
- 19:35:08 [Jan]
- Topic: 3. Conformance claim harmonization with WCAG (SN's issue):
- 19:36:34 [Jan]
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/ED-ATAG20-20111014/#conf-claim
- 19:36:43 [Jan]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#conformance-claims
- 19:38:08 [jeanne]
- [comparison with WCAG]
- 19:39:55 [jeanne]
- JR: who can make the claim is different. WCAG is completely open. We allow collections of software components to conform. We also allow the claimant to state the technologies they are making the claim against. ATAG also asks the platform, but WCAG does not.
- 19:42:25 [jeanne]
- Sueann: Claims should be made by the entity that owns the intellectual property. This is a blocking issue.
- 19:42:48 [Jan]
- SN: "Developer" is too loose
- 19:42:56 [jeanne]
- ... developer is not appropriate when we are discussing intellectual property. These are quasi-legal statements.
- 19:44:09 [Jan]
- JR: Authoring tool provide
- 19:44:14 [Jan]
- GP: Publisher?
- 19:44:19 [Jan]
- GP: Licensor?
- 19:45:24 [Jan]
- JS: What about open source group?
- 19:45:32 [Jan]
- SN: No different..someone licenses it
- 19:45:45 [Jan]
- JS: True...but who has the authority
- 19:47:45 [Jan]
- JR: Authoring tool representative?
- 19:48:10 [Jan]
- SN: It's the company...open source org, software company...
- 19:48:24 [Jan]
- GP: The entity that controls the intellectual property
- 19:49:28 [Jan]
- SN: Likes what Alex just said..
- 19:49:50 [Jan]
- AL: Basically entities that do not have IP ownerhsip claim on a product cannot make claims
- 19:49:58 [jeanne]
- The entity who does not have control of the inteelectual property cannot make a claim on behalf of the product.
- 19:51:40 [Jan]
- SN: Why this "At least one version of the conformance claim must be published..."
- 19:52:38 [Jan]
- JR: Came from here UAAG1: http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-USERAGENT/conformance.html#conformance-claims
- 19:52:54 [Jan]
- JS: Important for people out there to get this info
- 19:53:48 [Jan]
- SN: Why multiple versions?
- 19:54:05 [jeanne]
- JS: different versions of the product
- 19:54:16 [jeanne]
- GP: those would be different claims
- 19:56:00 [jeanne]
- GP: Let's not confuse versions with renditions
- 19:56:11 [Zakim]
- -Tim_Boland
- 19:56:22 [jeanne]
- JR: This refers more to file formats.
- 19:56:48 [jeanne]
- JR: I will take an action to review the conformance claim and update the language.
- 19:56:50 [Zakim]
- -Alex
- 19:56:51 [Zakim]
- -Sueann
- 19:56:55 [Zakim]
- -Greg
- 19:57:18 [Jan]
- Action JR: To review the conformance section and propose and issues for a survey.
- 19:57:19 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-360 - Review the conformance section and propose and issues for a survey. [on Jan Richards - due 2011-10-31].
- 19:57:25 [Jan]
- zakim, who's here?
- 19:57:25 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Jeanne, Jan
- 19:57:26 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see Greg, jeanne, RRSAgent, Zakim, Jan, trackbot
- 20:11:28 [Zakim]
- -Jan
- 20:11:33 [Zakim]
- -Jeanne
- 20:11:35 [Zakim]
- WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has ended
- 20:11:37 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Jeanne, Alex, Jan, +1.571.765.aaaa, Greg, Sueann, Tim_Boland
- 20:11:55 [jeanne]
- rrsagent, make logs public
- 20:12:00 [jeanne]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 20:12:00 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/24-au-minutes.html jeanne
- 20:12:21 [jeanne]
- rrsagent, make logs public
- 20:12:34 [jeanne]
- Meeting: AUWG
- 20:13:01 [jeanne]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 20:13:01 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/24-au-minutes.html jeanne
- 20:13:24 [jeanne]
- rrsagent, bye
- 20:13:24 [RRSAgent]
- I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/10/24-au-actions.rdf :
- 20:13:24 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: JR to To review the conformance section and propose and issues for a survey. [1]
- 20:13:24 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/10/24-au-irc#T19-57-18