update on coordination, status check on 194 (video transcript), 199 (aria processing), 203 (media descriptors), 204 (aria hidden)

<Judy> scribe: Judy

<JF> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ISSUE-194/TranscriptElement

194 (video transcript)

JF: Silvia updated proposal... transcript element and transcript attribute
... not yet as clearly captured as needs to be
... had 5 to 6 hrs of conf calls, Silvia, Charles, Janina, John agreeing on approach
... still need the bits for the button; if fixed, I (JF) will withdraw my CP in deference to this
... couldn't connect w/ Ted as planned yet but will try today

JS: and there were other suggestions to Silvia that we expect that Silvia is taking up; then I (JS) will take this to an A11Y consensus vote in the next day

JF: and I sent email with additional changes including removing a sentence to which there was significant disagreement
... looking good for having one consensus proposal

JS: plans to send CfC by 4pm Eastern tomorrow.

<JF> scribe: JF

JB: Issue (ARIA processing)

JS: on Micheal, but have not heard anything specifically

he is coordinating with Ted as well - don't anticipate any issues as there seemed to be substantive agreement at the F2F

deadline for that is Thursday as well

goal is to be able to discuss on the thursday WG call this week

JB: 203 (media descriptors)

JS: John's CP is in, not aware of any other CPs

Issue 302?

s/ Issue 302?/.

<Judy> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/203

<janina> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/203

Deadline for counter-proposals is June 10th, 201

JF: no other feedback from the Chairs - presume the current CP meets the requirements based upon the request for counter CPS

<Judy> ACTION: JB and JS remind H5CC's that JF's 203 CP may need an actual review before this actually goes fwd [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/05/22-text-minutes.html#action01]

JB: 204

<Judy> Issue 204 (ARIA hidden)

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/204

<laura> Hi

JS: waiting to see if Ben will produce a CP

will need to happen quickly too

this is with the WG and the Chairs to see if Ted/Jonas/Matt to withdraw their other CP

LC: do you think that will succeed?

JS: unsure

If the other CP does not get withdrawn, then next steps is WBS

Next step is on Ted

JF: Hoping to chat with Ted this week (today) will ask him at that time about this as well

JS: If this goes to survey, then I've requested that the details section be written in plain english and not a diff

JB: hope that this is resolved quickly
... we need to understand what will be in Section 7.1

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/AllowAriaReferHidden

http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=6979&to=6980

<janina> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Correct_Hidden_Attribute_Section_v3#Details

cp says: "Revert the change made at the request of the HTMLWG Chairs in http://html5.org/r/6980 to make the W3C version of the spec consistent with the WHATWG version of the spec. "

JS: Just want to be sure that this is done *before* the survey

JB: so essentially this is very difficult to read, and almost impossible via a Screen Reader

JS: yes

<Judy> ACTION: JB and JS remind H5CCs of need for English prose proposed change not only diff of proposed change, *BEFORE* the thing goes to survey, if going to survey... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/05/22-text-minutes.html#action02]

<Judy> JF: Firefox implementation

<Judy> JB: Concerned about how this affects resolution of 204 -- (no, 30)

<Judy> ...invitation to dialog on this

<Judy> JF: will think and talk w/ you if have ideas

confirm next meeting; identify next scribe; adjourn

zakimj, take up item 8

Issue 31b, Buggy Alts & Guidance: next steps

<laura> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-html5-20120329/editing.html#the-hidden-attribute

Issue 31c: "Generator Exception" feedback on additional info requested

JS: Laura posted link about what background on the Firefox issue (Item 7/Issue 204)

<Judy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012May/0094.html

JB: Generator Exception

don't have a draft for updated CP yet

link is to Sam's email

re-read the response numerous times. There is a lot of detail about what would make the CP stronger

worth looking at those details and the kinds of evidence being asked for

Chairs have already agreed to take anecdotal evidence when provided

looking to get statements from trainers - people who do training

ack

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to talk about glazou's comments

JB: gathering up additional evidence
... the magic semantics issue was seen as new information p not sufficient in itself, but with other points would be sufficient

the issue of inequitable rendering. Unsure what could be presented as evidence, as it seems self-evident; and that doesn't seem as high a priority item to pursue compared to some others, so will leave as is.

sufficient evidence of harm - taken as non-evidence. What specific evidence

since this is such an important argument will re-evaluate

obviates intent of validator is also critical

JB: fatal ambiguity issue - people started to re-define what is "hand authoring" - don't think this is able to be handled as a bug, and that seems an important point to clarify -- e.g., the point is that any "fix" on that would be inadequate.

<Judy> jb adds remaining notes from discussion for processing the meta generator feedback: problem with precedence of auth tool over end user requirements, that point can also be made through "do no harm"; inconsistent & obscure weighting of objections, that point can be made off-line; breaking harmonization, that point is important to convey, from w3c pov, to all wg's.

<Judy> subsequent discussion confirmed those approaches.