See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 31 May 2012
<janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y Task Force Teleconference
<scribe> scribe: Rich
<scribe> meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Meeting
<scribe> chair: janina
<MichaelC> scribeNick: richardschwerdtfe
<scribe> meeting: make log member
janina: has anyone been able to
look at Steve's test page
... there are two competing change proposals
... The Ted/Jonas proposal regarding RFC 2119
... I don't want to embarrass anyone
Judy: I don't think it is an
embarrassment issue it is an information sharing issue.
... I think it is a simple matter of information sharing or reminding. Yes, we had proposed that but that is not possible in this situation as we believed as well.
... We had asked him to use the same consistency
JF: In the current change
proposal that emerged from the F2F that authors should not be
using hidden elements that used RFC 2119 language.
... Although we have RFC 2119 in the change proposal it puts the onus on the author in terms of RFC SHOULD NOT but there is MAY language pertaining to the browser
... Jonas is half right and we are half right
... We want to make sure this referencing hidden content is right. There is a strong feeling that they don't want to link to external content
janina: the issue was making RFC
2119 comments regarding ARIA markup and how it should be
... are we being inconsistent there John?
JF: I don't think so. I could
live with MAY
... Insisting that authors should or must is problematic.
... Cynthia's response was that MUST was not acceptable
... Cynthia would discuss SHOULD
janina: they are looking on
SHOULD or MUST language
... we are not supportive of that
JF: I am not optimistic of a single proposal
Judy: my understanding of the discussion is that since the effort to use that language in one place has been strongly objected by the chairs and that Sam has a follow up item on that
paulc: That follow up item is dependent on something Janina had to do
Judy: Janina did that last night
paulc: I must have missed it
Janina: to post a link
<scribe> meeting: makelog member
<scribe> meeting: makelog public
paulc: neither Sam nor I are on the email
<JF> scribe: JF
JS: Asking Rich about Issue 205
PC: Question about whether Spec should give guidance on <canvas> and if authors should use text-editing
RS: recall that Frank Oliver suggested not to do this
CP: yes, he authored the zero-change proposal
RS: slightly confused, as Frank also worked on the initial proposal months ago
Straw Poll closes end of business Next Thursday
RS: what is confusing is that there is a CP that we will be voting on -introducing real world use-cases now
now we have a second CP
JS: we shouldn't dwell on history, the question is what to do today
RS: I've been asked to resubmit the CP with real world use-cases
PC: believe you are confusing this with a different issue
Chairs reviewed this before going forward - we may be wrong but believe that there are 2 CPs
if there is some confusion then this is unfortunate
RS: why do we have two issues that are essentially the same issue?
this does not make sense
PC: this is a recent note, taken from the status page. If you follow from there you will see what happened
RS: so Frank is suggesting that
there are 2 points, text (??) and text editing
... so it has been broken out into 2 things. Franks justification is that this is too hard.
PC: this is what the survey is for
RS: Thought that author guidance was not to be inserted into the Spec
are we adding author guidance or not?
PC: waiting to wee what WG members have to say on that topic (add or not add author guidance)
RS: we have a CP that addresses the text-editing problem - group will vote to include or not include
JS: we need to wrap this up for no
if I understand correctly is that we have the tools, but some are still asking that we say 'don't do it"
RS: based on what
JB: sounds like Rich has found a process problem between 2 CPs - sounds like a bunch of tangled history
suggestion is to rather then dwell on that but focus on the point that Rich is drawing
if there is a linkage, which I think i am hearing, we should perhaps work on this off-line
RS: don't think we should be having a straw poll before the first issue is resolved
JF: just want to point out that there is author guidance included in our CP for Issue 204
JS: there are some places where we want to remove author guidance, and others where we want to see it included
RS: Chairs should have resolved the technical issue first; makes no sense to include an API, then turn around and say don't use it
JB: suggest we take this off-line for now
we have a week to review this and work forward
JS: can't deal with this today - point is the heads up that it is on our plate
<richardschwerdtfe> janina: we have a redrafted proposal
<scribe> scribe: richardschwerdtfe
michael: I copied his style.
Taking the ARIA value type.
... I said they are valid on all elements but that there are restrictions and implied host language elements where the roles apply
... we don't want to copy and duplicate errors. It does require us to follow a couple of links to see the full implementation model.
janina: I believe we have all issues from the face to face addressed in this draft.
Judy: What if we don't get a
response to the draft?
... We have a number of things waiting on Ted that have received no response
<JF> (Ted did make some commitments at the F2F on these topics)
<paulc> I am having auditory problems. And just dropped off phone call.
Michael: we should have time to
... I am hoping he will have little objections
janina: this is video transcript
<Judy> rssagent, make log world
janina: I do see that Ted has offered a change proposal based on his IDREF
JF: I have not fully read Ted's
proposal. What I can see here is that from an accessibility
perspective Ted's proposal would satisfy
... The transcript attribute would be acceptable
... It boils down to Ted and Silivia's proposal would be whether Silvia's proposal is to create a transcript element "landmark" is acceptable
Paul: I don't think we have anything on record that actually says what you might be about to infer
Paul: if you look there you will
notice that the confusing situation with the new attribute
... That is the new attribute
... I am trying to determine what this group's position on the previous proposal
<paulc> New proposal for element: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ISSUE-194/TranscriptElement
JF: there is a change proposal
that Silvia worked on with Charles, myself, and janina
... if you go to the bottom there are 5 other change proposals in play
... I will be withdrawing @transcript. The earlier proposal created by Silva and Ted should be removed but I am not sure
Paul: I may have to peel these
off one at a time
... I need to know if Silvia is withdrawing her proposal for issue 194.
... I am asking about the no change and am targeting at Ted.
... Ted - now that you have a new proposal are you removing the no change proposal. Which are the survivors?
janina: taking John's point and
... our accessibility requirements are addressed either way but there may be one which we prefer. Can we move toward a resolution on that?
JF: on first blush I like the one
we worked on earlier with the <transcript> element
... Silvlia still wants to address Ben's concerns
... if we can address his concerns we will have a stronger proposal
Rich: did the transcript track proposal die?
janina: it had to do with rendering issues
JF: we should wait on
... we are not in a rush to do anything
Paul: John You could work on your argument for the transcript element now that you have seen Ted's proposal
JF: both proposals use IDREF and
Ted said you could use a div for the transcript but Silvia
recommends a transcript element
... I will try to connect with Silvia later on today
<paulc> Leaving now for the WG meeting., I am chairing.
janina: Hopefully we will have a
stable and improved version of 194 by next week
... we can defer other activity
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/RFC SHOULD but/RFC SHOULD NOT but/ Succeeded: s/The people I’ve found so far who deal with SLAs are Lowell Jenks, David Mills, Rudy Gil and Jeff James// Found Scribe: Rich Found ScribeNick: richardschwerdtfe Found Scribe: JF Inferring ScribeNick: JF Found Scribe: richardschwerdtfe Inferring ScribeNick: richardschwerdtfe Scribes: Rich, JF, richardschwerdtfe ScribeNicks: richardschwerdtfe, JF WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: CP Cooper Cynthia_Shelly JB JF JS Janina_Sajka Judy MichaelC Microsoft Mike MikeSmith PC Paul Paul_Cotton RS Rich davidb html-a11y https inserted janina joined michael paulc richardschwerdtfe scribeNick tm trackbot You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy Found Date: 31 May 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/05/31-html-a11y-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]