AUWG -- 24 Oct 2011

<Jan> Scribe: Jan

<scribe> Chair: Jan Richards

<Greg> Hello Zakim

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024

<scribe> scribe: jeanne

1. Last call comments (due Sept 15)

2. Actions arising from last week:

<Jan> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results

reversible actions

Jan: PF accepted our changes to the last draft in responses to their cvomments

<Jan> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq9

<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

term "authoring action" in to the preview defn note

<Jan> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq10

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

programmatically determined

<Jan> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq11

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. "

A.2.2.1 Editing-View Status Information

<Jan> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq4

<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. "

3. Conformance claim harmonization with WCAG (SN's issue):

<Jan> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/ED-ATAG20-20111014/#conf-claim

<Jan> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#conformance-claims

[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 claims
... Let's not confuse versions with renditions

JR: This refers more to file formats.
... 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].

- DRAFT -

AUWG

24 Oct 2011

Attendees

Contents