See also: IRC log
Hi... phone says conference restricted... it's 2119 Right?
<scribe> scribe: David
H5CCs have not read 31c yet; we expect to hear back by next monday
JB: expect reopen or feedback on proposal, not an explanation why they are not reopening
<JF> Issue 194?
Janina, discussion at face to face
jf: F to F discussion, no debate that it is a requirement. some concern about @transcript, kind of a proxy for LONGDESC almost... convinced them that the no change proposal is unacceptable. .. but could discuss other solutions. .. maybe go the direction off IDREF... JF things it might be clunky... will explore expanding traack
to include @kind Transcript
same contextual menu already used in Subtitle and caption... many people liked it... contextual menu open to all users, no onscreen encombrance like a 'D' link... some argement that there should be a link on the page... JF will write it up... will ping sean hayes,
possible that transcripts could use timestamps but expect documents
<JF> @kind="metadata" is not defined to take time-stamped files
Janina, I think Cynthia described timed experimenting already happening. ...
jf: feels greater that metadata does not require timed data
janina, expect the case where there is none and where there is timestamps.
much progress. .. so chairs suggested we get into 204 ...
heard chairs say that change restricted UAs development in the future
Janina: could we not change it.... APPLE think they could build DewcribedBY with semantics etc
we should not restrict them
jf: we removed restriction on
browsers, general consensus that we should not do that
... useful for authors to hide bits of text offscreen it's when hiding lots of it.... RFC2119 says should exist good reason for ignoring content
... so this is the best advice we can give
<laura> John, thank you for disentangling the proposed the draft revisions from the accessibilty task force concensus change proposal.
jf: this is the best win we can get... we got together and felt it was good, ted, o'conner, JF, and cynthia, didn't save as version of a there ...
<laura> It seems that we lost two important items: 1. Benjamin's example. and 2. Johns's note regarding length of text:.
laura: we lost Benjamen's example, and length of text
JF: soe comments that this is more authoring guidance
<laura> example:<input id=f type=checkbox checked>
<laura> <label hidden for=f>
<laura> I do <strong>not</strong> want to receive marketing materials.
jf: most authors won't go through
HTML 5 for accessibility guidance, most will go to WCAG
... when we left the room Friday, we had a good quarum, and amicable resolution on 204
... we have conformance issues such as not using headings, links, etc...
so 204 should affect 30
laura: concern that it will compromise 30
janina: describedby is not on the table, anymore for long or structured text, so Longdesc will be the only answer
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to say that this is not what is being said (lack of support)
I think new language puts us in a good place
jf: fruitful progress
jb: have these explanations
helped address concerns Laura?
... i'm finding explanations satisfactory?
Laura: yes they address my concerns so far, I haven't read the document in detail
jf: we extracted a few things, and have that captured, I can send that to you... we removed two paragraphs and code example,
janina: can you send that to the list
I cleaned up my spelling and grammar
in the issue, but nothing else
jf: leif added a border, mathew fixed a link. ... minor changes
janina: can we have a 48 hour (or 72 hr) consensus email
later this week
<JF> I will send out an email to the list that outlines the changes we made to the V3 edits
<JF> essentially removing the statements that browsers shouldn't create accessible objects, the addition of RFC 2119 SHOULD NOT language, and the removal of the code example
resolution: johnwill put out list changes Version 2 to 3, a 48 hour consensus email.
<laura> I have to drop off the call now
Janina, good summary of issues that David has presented...
we should tag in a table... a column... remaining columns to pointers... anchor refs... to keep the start statements... we have a list of bugs for ones that were never filed...
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) Succeeded: s/reoping/reopening/ Succeeded: s/ATTRANSCRIPT/@transcript/ Succeeded: s/ATKIND/@kind/ Succeeded: s/31c not picked up yet, expect to hear back early next week/ H5CCs have not read 31c yet; we expect to hear back by next monday/ Found Scribe: David Inferring ScribeNick: David Default Present: John_Foliot, judy, David_MacDonald, Laura_Carlson, Janina Present: John_Foliot judy David_MacDonald Laura_Carlson Janina Got date from IRC log name: 08 May 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/05/08-text-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]