See also: IRC log
<Jan> Scribe: Jan
<scribe> Chair: Jan Richards
<Greg> Hello Zakim
<scribe> scribe: jeanne
Jan: PF accepted our changes to the last draft in responses to their cvomments
<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".
Greg: If there is revert or
rollback, that should also be included
... the revert is to a last saved point, so it would not be a sequential reverse of actions.
JR: At the minimum level, it can be a revert. At the AAA it is a sequential reversal.
AL: But the SC hasn't changed?
JR: The SC has changed. The notes have moved to the definition
RESOLUTION: Accept the above wording
<Jan> Resolution: All accept reversible actions changes from "http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq9" with added examples, revert etc
JR: changed to discriminate between editable authoring actions and testing author action
<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.
<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.
JS: I think we should keep "editable" because some people may consider testing a preview page as an authoring action
<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.
<Jan> programmatically determined
JR: I added the note.
AL: That looks fine to me.
<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...
<Jan> ...does not include a platform accessibility service. "
<Jan> AL: looks ok to me
<Jan> SN: Seems reasonable
<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. "
[comparison with WCAG]
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.
Sueann: Claims should be made by the entity that owns the intellectual property. This is a blocking issue.
<Jan> SN: "Developer" is too loose
Sueann: developer is not appropriate when we are discussing intellectual property. These are quasi-legal statements.
<Jan> JR: Authoring tool provide
<Jan> GP: Publisher?
<Jan> GP: Licensor?
<Jan> JS: What about open source group?
<Jan> SN: No different..someone licenses it
<Jan> JS: True...but who has the authority
<Jan> JR: Authoring tool representative?
<Jan> SN: It's the company...open source org, software company...
<Jan> GP: The entity that controls the intellectual property
<Jan> SN: Likes what Alex just said..
<Jan> AL: Basically entities that do not have IP ownerhsip claim on a product cannot make claims
The entity who does not have control of the inteelectual property cannot make a claim on behalf of the product.
<Jan> SN: Why this "At least one version of the conformance claim must be published..."
<Jan> JR: Came from here UAAG1: http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-USERAGENT/conformance.html#conformance-claims
<Jan> JS: Important for people out there to get this info
<Jan> SN: Why multiple versions?
JS: different versions of the product
GP: those would be different
... Let's not confuse versions with renditions
JR: This refers more to file
... I will take an action to review the conformance claim and update the language.
<Jan> ACTION: JR to To review the conformance section and propose and issues for a survey. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/10/24-au-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-360 - Review the conformance section and propose and issues for a survey. [on Jan Richards - due 2011-10-31].
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: Jan Inferring ScribeNick: Jan Found Scribe: jeanne Inferring ScribeNick: jeanne Scribes: Jan, jeanne ScribeNicks: Jan, jeanne Default Present: Jeanne, Alex, Jan, +1.571.765.aaaa, Greg, Sueann, Tim_Boland Present: Jeanne Alex Jan +1.571.765.aaaa Greg Sueann Tim_Boland Regrets: Jutta T. Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0038.html Got date from IRC log name: 24 Oct 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/10/24-au-minutes.html People with action items: jr[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]