17:01:03 RRSAgent has joined #text 17:01:03 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/09/18-text-irc 17:01:19 chair: judy 17:01:34 laura has joined #text 17:02:11 JF has joined #text 17:02:43 zakim, who's on the phone? 17:02:43 sorry, Judy, I don't know what conference this is 17:02:44 On IRC I see JF, laura, RRSAgent, Judy, Zakim 17:03:19 agenda+ Agenda review; identify scribe. 17:03:19 agenda+ Issue 30, longdesc, discussion of comments received on call for consensus 17:03:19 agenda+ Issue 31b, buggy alts and buggy alt guidance, separating, confirming links and evidence 17:03:19 agenda+ Confirm next meeting; identify next scribe; adjourn 17:08:56 janina has joined #text 17:10:32 zakim, take up next item 17:10:32 agendum 5. "Issue 206, metagenerator exemption removed, status of remaining 206 explorations" taken up [from Judy] 17:10:33 scribe: janina 17:10:43 zakim, drop item 5 17:10:43 agendum 5, Issue 206, metagenerator exemption removed, status of remaining 206 explorations, dropped 17:10:47 zakim, take up next item 17:10:47 agendum 6. "Confirm next meeting; identify next scribe; adjourn" taken up [from Judy] 17:10:54 zakim, drop item 6 17:10:54 agendum 6, Confirm next meeting; identify next scribe; adjourn, dropped 17:10:59 zakim, take up next item 17:10:59 agendum 7. "Agenda review; identify scribe." taken up [from Judy] 17:11:07 scribe = janina 17:11:16 scribe=janina 17:11:25 scribe:janina 17:11:38 zakim, take up next item 17:11:38 agendum 7 was just opened, Judy 17:11:43 zakim, close item 7 17:11:43 agendum 7, Agenda review; identify scribe., closed 17:11:44 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 17:11:44 8. Issue 30, longdesc, discussion of comments received on call for consensus [from Judy] 17:11:47 zakim, take up next item 17:11:47 agendum 8. "Issue 30, longdesc, discussion of comments received on call for consensus" taken up [from Judy] 17:12:30 jb: Appear to have many comments on list re longdesc, but not on the lang we asked for comments on 17:12:34 Two actionable comments. 17:13:07 jb: Have people had a chance to catch up on the thread? 17:13:15 jb: Anyone not up to speed? 17:13:21 1. Janina found a two typos in the overlay, that I fixed. 17:13:28 2. Chaals said he could live with the overlay text as is and offered some text for improvement. I would like to go through these in the meeting today. 17:13:35 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Sep/0192.html 17:14:01 [answer: mostly caught up] 17:14:35 jb: So, any edits? 17:14:45 lc: Janina had typos, Chaas had substantive 17:15:32 Janina's message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Sep/0139.html 17:17:27 jb: Any comments on Chaas suggestions 17:17:39 janina: They were on the substance in the CP, not on the wrapper text 17:17:48 lc: Perhaps too detailed as well 17:17:58 lc: Mainly rewording what we had 17:18:03 s/had/have/ 17:18:38 jb: MDid his comments influence the disucssion? 17:18:42 janina: Don't think so 17:18:45 lc: agree 17:20:14 jb: Would Chaas comments change anyone else's approach? 17:20:40 jf: Chaas raised some good points, kicked off wider discussion 17:25:16 Q+ 17:25:27 janina: My sense of the comments of the past few days on this thread have recapped the arguments of the past few years succinctly 17:27:02 jf: The obsolete req falls on authors 17:28:17 jf: They're trying to impose an authoring requirement where they don't have a workable approach 17:28:56 jf: "Obsolete but conforming" means authors shouldn't use, but user agents will still support 17:29:13 jf: It will throw an error 17:32:57 jb: My hope had been that people would look more closely at the overview provided 17:33:04 lc: So, what to do with Chaas comments? 17:38:12 [review of comments on thread in progress] 17:38:17 [Steve abstained] 17:50:23 [we're reviewing comments and working on a summary] 18:13:41 [DRAFT] Summary of feedback received: nine respondents affirmed or re-affirmed their support for the InstateLongdesc change proposal (two with suggested edits but who also affirmed their support without those changes) [Gez L, David M, Josh O'C, Geoff F, Charles MN, Leif S, Laura C, Leonie W, John F]; two people supported with proposed edits which in fact had already been applied to the change proposal in the past, and are therefore already included in the CP [Sil 18:14:47 s/was received/were received/ 18:15:08 s/note appear/not appear/ 18:15:27 s/intended these/intended those/ 18:16:13 jb double-checking several comments.... 18:17:57 jb: "supported with proposed edits" is not correct. 18:18:04 changing text... 18:20:02 [redraft] two people proposed edits without stating support but their suggestions had already been incorporated in the past... 18:22:24 draft with corrections: 18:22:27 [DRAFT] Summary of feedback received: nine respondents affirmed or re-affirmed their support for the InstateLongdesc change proposal (two with suggested edits but who also affirmed their support without those changes) [Gez L, David M, Josh O'C, Geoff F, Charles MN, Leif S, Laura C, Leonie W, John F]; two people proposed edits without stating support but their suggestions had already been incorporated in the past [Silvia Pf, Rich S]; one abstained [Steve F]; two t 18:24:23 s/one abstained/one abstained and his suggestions had also already been incorporated/ 18:26:01 [final summary of comments received by response deadline] Summary of feedback received: nine respondents affirmed or re-affirmed their support for the InstateLongdesc change proposal (two with suggested edits but who also affirmed their support without those changes) [Gez L, David M, Josh O'C, Geoff F, Charles MN, Leif S, Laura C, Leonie W, John F]; two people proposed edits without stating support but their suggestions had already been incorporated in the past [ 18:27:12 jb: Reminding that last Thursday's TF call agreed that Text Subteam could process comments on behalf of TF 18:27:32 jb: Further notes that all TF were invited to the Text call 18:28:11 jb: Now appears the preponderance of comments continue to reaffirm TF support for the InstateLongdesc CP on Issue-30 18:30:19 jb: Also note that several comments received speak to further development for an enhanced longer description mechanism 18:31:49 jb: Regret we did not get to buggy alt topic, note we have update from David 18:31:50 Yes! longdesc on ,