See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: janina
<Judy> scribe: Janina
jb: Not as much time on this yet
as I had hoped ...
... Do expect a coordination chat later today to include this topic
... Asking Laura whether she is out on vacation next week?
lc: Yes. Week of Aug 13
jb: And, I'm on vacation this
... Then I'm out again week of Aub 20
... Believe we're agreed that adding a Preamble would be helpful. Do not yet have a draft, expect one later this week.
... Janina and I were revisiting history, esp the feedback review from February last
lc: Yes, he wanted use cases updated and I did that
jb: And there was other feedback.
Looking at the history, seems that TF reaffirmation in April
may have been focussed on correlation to I204?
... Laura, can you help confirm that we covered all feedback that was requested?
jb: Thanks, I'll be on it this
week and we can cover on this.
... One additional question re rebuttal response, are you open to feedback?
... Definitely want to make it as strong as I can.
jb: After those two we can
consider whether we want to lay in summary overview lang at the
top layer to make the arguments clearer to people viewing the
... Hopeful something within a week or two of the 17th is OK, but we need to see I204 decision first.
jf: Do we know when we will have a 204 decision?
jb: Believe they intend to wrap
... It isn't necessarily just which of the two CPs they adopt, but also what assertions they might make in their decision.
... For instance there seems to be a continuing understanding that 204 can satisfy longer text description requirements.
jf: Seems we would want a week or two after the 204 decision to deal with fallout?
jb: So, if it's out this week, we
still need time to digest it, and consider how to address any
assertions that might cause misunderstandings with regard to
the context for issue 30.
... At the WG call Sam was suggesting perhaps something like 204 decision plus X number of weeks
... Did we not decide we were going to revisit the long text description reqs?
... Understand last week was very busy
... That is the other piece we need, though. A clear, systematic statement of the reqs
jf: I was supposed to do that by
today, but it has slipped, sorry.
... I have been pulled further into 206 than I anticipated, it's true.
jb: So, can you do it this week? Independent of these other pieces?
jb: Perhaps by TF on Thursday?
jf: Probably--will try.
<JF> will try HARD
js: PF will want to review.
jb: Yes, and we can tweak here
next week as well
... Don't believe there's anything else on 30 for now? ...
<JF> current requirments text: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Verbose_desc_reqs#Requirements
js: One more important piece is the decision on 194. While not proposing possible approaches on handling longer text descriptions, it may make assertions that we need to consider, and we don't know what they're going to say, or how they will reason their conclusions.
jb: Is there a particular concern re 194?
js: I can't predict. It's as much as the reasoning applied that matters.
jf: There are two different design approaches on 194.
jb: Since decision on 194 is
already made, or close, and certainly survey has closed, we
should ask and we should look at it.
... Also want to be sure we explore the importance of supporting established W3C a11y tech, that has users.
... Implementers have an obligation here
jb: I'm finding this looks so
much clearer than before. Thanks, David!
... One additional tweak -- the last two columns in the first table -- Can you swap them?
<Judy> h1 Analyis of alt guidance and alts in HTML5 specification
<Judy> h2 Analysis of alt guidance
<Judy> h2 Analysis of alts
jb: Thanks, John, for the test
... Janina, you also emphasized a particular point on that
js: Here's my key comment on the WBS:
Janina Sajka Objection: It is inappropriate to base any HTML 5 behavior on the current ARIA specifications because the current ARIA specifications are normative for HTML 4 only. Work has not yet begun on ARIA for HTML 5, except as has been negotiated with the PF-WG expressly for use in HTML 5 specifications. If the HTML-WG wishes to negotiate additional ARIA
behavior fr its HTML 5 specifications, iat should propose the particulars to the PF-WG.
<David> me/ OK done... http://www.davidmacd.com/WCAG/WAI/buggy.html
<laura> Great job David. Thanks for all of your work.
<laura> Bye. Have to go now.
js: In conversation with Mike this morning we agreed it might be best to undo meta generator first as no one appears to be supporting it any longer
jf: Agree and suggested this to
... Believe everyone's in agreement on that, Hickson, Henry, everyone
... What the something else is is still very much in discussion
jf: Cooking up a proposal for a default accessible-name
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/Looking at the history/And there was other feedback. Looking at the history/ Succeeded: s/the argument flow smooth/the arguments clearer to people viewing the change proposal/ Succeeded: s/and consider implications/and consider how to address any assertions that might cause misunderstandings with regard to the context for issue 30/ Found Scribe: janina Found Scribe: Janina Inferring ScribeNick: janina Default Present: Janina, Judy, David_MacDonald, John_Foliot, Laura_Carlson Present: Janina Judy David_MacDonald John_Foliot Laura_Carlson Regrets: Laura WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting Got date from IRC log name: 07 Aug 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/08/07-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]