See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: janina
<Judy> scribe = janina
<Judy> scribe=janina
<Judy> scribe:janina
jb: Appear to have many comments on list re longdesc, but not on the lang we asked for comments on
<laura> Two actionable comments.
jb: Have people had a chance to catch up on the
thread?
... Anyone not up to speed?
<laura> 1. Janina found a two typos in the overlay, that I fixed.
<laura> 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.
<laura> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Sep/0192.html
[answer: mostly caught up]
jb: So, any edits?
lc: Janina had typos, Chaas had substantive
<laura> Janina's message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Sep/0139.html
jb: Any comments on Chaas suggestions
janina: They were on the substance in the CP, not on the wrapper text
lc: Perhaps too detailed as well
... Mainly rewording what we have
jb: MDid his comments influence the disucssion?
janina: Don't think so
lc: agree
jb: Would Chaas comments change anyone else's approach?
jf: Chaas raised some good points, kicked off wider discussion
janina: My sense of the comments of the past few days on this thread have recapped the arguments of the past few years succinctly
jf: The obsolete req falls on authors
... They're trying to impose an authoring requirement where they don't have a
workable approach
... "Obsolete but conforming" means authors shouldn't use, but user agents
will still support
... It will throw an error
jb: My hope had been that people would look more closely at the overview provided
lc: So, what to do with Chaas comments?
[review of comments on thread in progress]
[Steve abstained]
[we're reviewing comments and working on a summary]
<Judy> [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 [Silvia Pf, Rich S]; one abstained [Steve F]; two typos were corrected per comments received [Janina S]; two clear objections was received [James C, David S]; and several people commented but it does note appear that they intended these to be recorded as objections.
<Judy> s/was received/were received/
<Judy> s/note appear/not appear/
<Judy> s/intended these/intended those/
<Judy> jb double-checking several comments....
<Judy> jb: "supported with proposed edits" is not correct.
<Judy> changing text...
<Judy> [redraft] two people proposed edits without stating support but their suggestions had already been incorporated in the past...
<Judy> draft with corrections:
<Judy> [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 typos were corrected per comments received [Janina S]; two clear objections were received [James C, David S]; and several people commented but it does not appear that they intended those to be recorded as objections.
<Judy> [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 [Silvia Pf, Rich S]; one abstained and his suggestions had also already been incorporated[Steve F]; two typos were corrected per comments received [Janina S]; two clear objections were received [James C, David S]; and several people commented but it does not appear that they intended those to be recorded as objections.
jb: Reminding that last Thursday's TF call agreed
that Text Subteam could process comments on behalf of TF
... Further notes that all TF were invited to the Text call
... Now appears the preponderance of comments continue to reaffirm TF support
for the InstateLongdesc CP on Issue-30
... Also note that several comments received speak to further development for
an enhanced longer description mechanism
... Regret we did not get to buggy alt topic, note we have update from
David
<laura> Yes! longdesc on <picture>, <video> etc.
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/had/have/ FAILED: s/was received/were received/ FAILED: s/note appear/not appear/ FAILED: s/intended these/intended those/ Succeeded: s/one abstained/one abstained and his suggestions had also already been incorporated/ Found Scribe: janina Found Scribe: janina Inferring ScribeNick: janina WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: Judy inserted janina jb jf laura lc left text You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy 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: 18 Sep 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/09/18-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]