See also: IRC log
<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If the other CP does not get withdrawn, then next steps is WBS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
zakimj, take up item 8
<laura> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-html5-20120329/editing.html#the-hidden-attribute
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.