See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 25 April 2013
Kelly: let's start with the last one – limited conformance for extensions
Greg: last thing in chat log – move 9 to 7
Kelly: the last one
Eric: one basic concern is that
it's not clear what this is intended to cover. I see two
possible major purposes of this section. One is to cover
software that is not actually a full user agent. Another
possibility is intended to address software that is not quite
reach the level a, meaning all the applicable level a success
criteria and therefore is below level a, or some combination of
... another concern is it makes reference to a main user agent, and we don't have a definition of that. There's a bunch of issues related to that section and I felt, well given the necessity of nailing down other key pieces of this document I thought it may be better to spend our time on other things rather than to try and carve out something that would raise a bunch of new issues.
... so for that reason I disagreed with the proposal.
Jennne: so you're proposing that we not consider extensions
Eric: can't we address an extension through the regular conformance criteria – if that is indeed a user agent why not use the criteria were already developing or trying to wrap up rather than develop a whole new section that has a lot of issues you have to resolve
Jeanne: what do other people think – should we include extensions? They are not user agents themselves, they are just modifying something and passing it to the user agent
Jan: I think the basic structure is solid, if you wanted to call out an extension for playing nicely in the UAAG environment it would need to basically meet those success criteria that applied to it and not interfere with other parts of the ecosystem
Jeanne: back in the days when we were originally talking about this,reason is to be able to include extensions like mouseless browsing.
Jan: you tell us what you meet, and that you don't interfere with user agent meeting other SC's
Eric: recall that a user agent relies on a platform to do some of its work – to fulfill its functionality such as rendering content to users. So is the possible that an extension could be viewed as a user agent in a situation where it relies upon a browser as part of its platform. In other words a browser doesn't necessarily have to be the user agent that is the subject of the claim, rather
Jan: I think we've taken that into account – we have some other terms for that. Here we were really talking about something as simple as mouseless browsing which is a very specific thing, and if it were treated as a user agent it would fail
Eric: would fail if it were connected to a user agent?
Jan: but that's a ton of work –
you're saying if you want to make a claim you also have to test
all of Firefox, which is a big deal. Other option is to claim
as an extension, you basically say we do this, we have
documentation and we don't brake – we support keyboard
accessibility of menu or the menu item that we had or something
like that, and we guarantee that we don't break any of
... other essays that Firefox needs to
Eric: do you feel that type of conformance is to be documented in this document or needs to be part of some other document that shows that UAAG can still be helpful to you if you are concerned about an extension that's not really in of itself
Jan: I think it encourages more software to get a foot on the bottom of the ladder. We have a dozen full on browsers in the world, but if we have other extensions joining in and making these related extension claims it grows the ecosystem a bit more. But if people feel strongly that it shouldn't be included I am fine
Jeanne: it also increases the chances that browsers can pass – with an extension – that's an advantage
Greg: I lean toward leaving it in
for all the reasons that Jan discussed. If you consider we want
people to be able to add commercial add-ins, makes sense.
Splitting into another document would require a lot of
bureaucratic wrangling on the part of our working group to
create something with teeth as opposed to an advisory thing. So
if we want to have it possible to do, including it in
... main document is the easiest way for us to do that.
Eric: in the example of mouseless
browsing, is there anything such as a platform for it? Does it
have a platform – does it require… I'm trying to think through
why doesn't fit within the main section and is it just a matter
that it's really burdensome on the developer to try and
document the nature of the platform because – let's say the
platform is a browser, then they've got to go...
... and document each piece of the browser, or – I'm just trying to think why it would be burdensome to require somebody a developer of an extension to document
Jan: it's burdensome on them obviously if you just do one little thing it's burdensome to have to make claims about the whole browser you are working with. In looking at it on the Firefox side, maybe there's more than one extension: ABC and D. You don't want to be tied to making a claim just with A. We leave it to them, it can be done. We've had that whole conversation before.
Eric: can we clarify that this is for software that is not actually a user agent or that is – has very limited functionality
Greg: that is what the first sentence says – this option may be used for a plug-in with limited functionality
Eric: do we have a definition for extension? Looking at the language – extension or plug-in with limited functionality. Does it have to be an extension or does it have to be a plug-in – anything that limited functionality?
Greg: can you give us an example of something that would not be a user agent or a plug-in?
Eric: what if somebody wanted to evaluate a limited function web browser
Greg: that would be user agent
<Jan> From the draft: user agent extension (add-in)
<Jan> Software installed into a user agent that adds one or more additional features that modify the behavior of the user agent. Two common capabilities for user agent extensions are the ability to *modify the content* before the user agent renders it (e.g., to add highlights if certain types of alternative content are present) and to *modify the user agent's own user interface * (e.g. add a...
<Jan> ...headings view).
<Jan> plug-in [ATAG 2.0]
<Jan> A plug-in is a program that runs as part of the user agent and that is not part of content. Users generally choose to include or exclude plug-ins from their user agents.
Eric: well, how limited doesn't have to be – what's the dividing line between things that have to be evaluated in the main section versus something that can offer this. This is a very abbreviated thing. It's something that's – are people going to abuse it by trying to evaluate software that is more limited than we really intended?
Jeanne: I think it's important to
keep in mind that we are probably the only people that will
ever use this section. Companies typically do not like to file
conformance claims because it opens them to lawsuits. So I
think it's important to realize that were the ones who are
going to use this – we are going to use this to get this
document for our recommendations. So if we spend a lot of
... and edge cases we're not going to get it done.
Eric: I guess what I would like –
if we have this section what I would like to see is does it
have to be something that meets the criteria of a user agent or
can it be – it ought to refer to the class of software that it
applies to ought to be defined and we ought to tell explicitly
how it differs from the user agent. Because what I hear you
saying is the thing that this is for are not...
... actually user agents in the sense you've defined it.
Jan: they are parts of user agents, but they add functionality
Greg: note that we do have a definition
Jan: I already pasted in
Greg: the issue on the table is whether to keep the section were deleted, correct?
Jan: also issue of what it should say – I think we should quickly come to a conclusion of what it should say, and then decide later if we should keep the section. We don't want it to be a section where we don't even know what the wording is going to be
Kelly: so we should resolve the content
Jan: something around the general
principle of let us know what you think is applicable to you as
an extension, certify that you met it, certify that you don't
prevent any other parts of the user agent that you are plugging
into from eating what it's supposed to meet, and there you go.
Once we get that text firmed up we can put an editor's note
into the actual document signed that will come...
... back later and decide whether we want this in the final draft.
Eric: it seems like this section
is for something that is part of the user agent, but is not – I
suppose you could have a part of the user agent that is also
user agent itself, but what I hear is if it were a user agent
itself it would be evaluated in the main section. So if it's a
part of a user agent that is not a user agent itself it's a –
and your prime example would be an add-in or...
... in, so that would be e.g. add-on, plug-in. That would help clarify what is being routed to the main section and what belongs in this section. It's a part of the user agent that is not – that doesn't have the capabilities that are defined as being part of a user agent. It doesn't satisfy all those characteristics, but it meets some of them and therefore a subset of the success criteria...
... should apply so your responsibility is to tell which you think apply and also to certify that it doesn't – prevent
Jeanne: prevent the main user agent from eating the success criteria
Eric: okay, so – based on the way I just defined the purpose of this one way – if you say that this applies to a part, that the software is part of the user agent then you need to specify the user agent of which it is a part, right?
Greg: for any claim you have you have to define what the user agent is. That could be further clarified by giving one of the in-line examples, where we describe a conformance claim including the user agent
Eric: I like what Greg has said
but instead of saying user agent – were kind of turning this
thing on its head as a partial conformance section – so to
clarify it, would it make sense to say that the platform for
the subject of this partial conformance claim has a more
extensive user agent type capabilities? I guess you could say
it's a user agent, but literally we're sort of –...
... the reason I was tripping over user agent is the paradigm that dominates in the document my assumption is the user agent is the core subject of the claim. It's supplemented by its platform. And so this kind of turns it on its head if we also call the platform of a subject of partial conformance a user agent.
Greg: I think we've already discussed that the platform can be a user agent for example for a plug-in
Kelly: what are the consequences if we just delete this section
Jeanne: big consequences for conformance
Eric: it doesn't really help – if you are relying on this – we have the wrong requirements, in other words every success criterion should be found in at least one user agent – something that meets our definition of user agent
Jeanne: It's really late to start this argument. Going through now is starting to eliminate all the success criteria that are currently implemented in the major browsers would be a vast change to the document. It's certainly not something I'm going to support a mustard overwhelming group agreement against it.
Eric: are you confident the W3C would allow us to count things that are instantiated in this partial conformance section
Jeanne: if it's written into conformance, yes, I can reasonably say that if we've written it so that they can conform than we can use it
Eric: if this is an important section to have I don't want to open an issue that doesn't have to be opened. Do we need to tweak our definition of user agent to say that it does – it also includes things that may do a subset of retrieve, render, facilitate user interaction. Earlier we said it had to meet all three
Jan: facilitate user interaction
is very broad. Some of them are pushing the envelope of what is
currently in the market. mouseless browsing is a good example.
We don't want to push so far that it's a dreamland. But
mouseless browsing is not in the out-of-the-box browser that
you download, but available as an extension which is easily
excessive will to anybody who wants to use browsers....
... There are several implementations of the ideas. And just as these are plugged into the browser we kind of see our document the same way – it's plugged into the requirements. You can make a conformance claim based on Firefox plus mouseless browsing, particular mouseless browsing 2.35 or whatever. Or from mouseless browsing perspective where it's just that small part, they don't have a...
... claim for the whole ecosystem they can just do thIndia Romeo part. it's called out as an extension. I don't think there's a danger of Firefox submitting a claim and calling it an extension.
Kelly: now we're up to 50 minutes on this
Greg: I support Jan suggestion that we move on to talking about it. Assuming that we want to keep it how do we want to word it.
Kelly: Can we get to a point on this call where we can call this done? This is one of the last things content wise that we have to work on in this document. It would be nice to be done today with this
Greg: I support the basic idea – two content wording suggestions. Seems to have dropped the part about not preventing the host user agent from conforming with any UAAG success criteria.
Jeanne: I'm good with that – we probably need to check with Jim and make sure he is
Greg: a technical definition
would be something like the hosting user agent does not fail
any success criteria when this add-in or extension is installed
– that it passes without the add-in or extension is
... that's the point – not pass every SC, but not fail any because this extension is installed. Something like the hosting user agent – would that be another SC or is it just a sentence in this – can we make it a requirement without having SC or certifying it can be verified
Jan: I think we should steer away from that not interfering with other functionalities because there are so many other functionalities that can be plugged in
<Greg> "The hosting user agent does not fail any success criteria when the add-in or extension is installed that it passes when the add-in or extension is not installed."
<Greg> Or "Installing the add-in does not cause the hosting user agent to fail any success criteria that it would otherwise pass."
Eric: do we need to make
reference to hosting user agent at its level. If you want your
extension to conform of the AA level then would it be the case
that your hosting user agent – the success criteria that you
are referencing are based on a AA conformance level for your
hosting user agent? Should there be any kind of matching? I'm
just trying to think of a way of being a little bit
... specific about which success criteria you have to certify that it doesn't interfere with?
Greg: pasted in language
General agreement with Greg's language
<Greg> Full paragraph: This option may be used for an extension or plug-in with limited functionality that wishes to claim UAAG 2.0 conformance. An extension or plugin can claim conformance for a specific success criterion or a narrow range of success criteria, as long as installing the add-in does not cause the hosting user agent to fail any success criteria that it would otherwise pass."
<Greg> "This option may be used for an extension or plug-in with limited functionality that wishes to claim UAAG 2.0 conformance. An extension or plugin can claim conformance for a specific success criterion or a narrow range of success criteria. The add-in must not cause the hosting user agent to fail any success criteria that it would otherwise pass."
<Greg> "This option may be used for an extension or plug-in with limited functionality that wishes to claim UAAG 2.0 conformance. An extension or plugin can claim conformance for a specific success criterion or a narrow range of success criteria. All other success criteria may be denoted as Not Applicable. The add-in must not cause the hosting user agent to fail any success criteria that it would...
<Greg> ...otherwise pass."
<Jan> This option may be used for a user agent extension or plug-in with limited functionality that wishes to claim UAAG 2.0 conformance. An extension or plugin can claim conformance for a specific success criterion or a narrow range of success criteria. All other success criteria may be denoted as Not Applicable. The add-in must not cause the hosting user agent to fail any success criteria that...
<Jan> ...it would otherwise pass.
Jeanne: I like it
Eric: claimant specified success criteria? Not success criteria we enumerate for them, but something they enumerate for us as part of the claim?
Jeanne: is that not clear
<jeanne> This option may be used for a user agent extension or plug-in with limited functionality that wishes to claim UAAG 2.0 conformance. An extension or plugin can claim conformance for a specific success criterion or a narrow range of success criteria stated in the claim. All other success criteria may be denoted as Not Applicable. The add-in must not cause the hosting user agent to fail any success
<jeanne> criteria that...
<jeanne> <Jan> ...it would otherwise pass.
Eric: it's not clear – who is specifying it is not stated. Because the whole rest of the document is about us specifying the criteria they need to meet, now they're specifyingwhich success criteria that need to meet
<Jan> This option may be used for a user agent extension or plug-in with limited functionality that wishes to claim UAAG 2.0 conformance. An extension or plugin can claim conformance for a specific success criterion or a narrow range of success criteria. All other success criteria may be denoted as Not Applicable. The add-in must not cause the combined user agent (hosting user agent plus installed...
<Jan> ...extension or plug-in) to fail any success criteria that the hosting user agent would otherwise pass.
Eric: it's got to be implicit that the user agent has a platform
Jan: yes, remember that this may even be embedded – we maybe five or six layers down here
<Jan> This option may be used for a user agent extension or plug-in with limited functionality that wishes to claim UAAG 2.0 conformance. An extension or plugin can claim conformance for a specific success criterion or a narrow range of success criteria a stated in the claim. All other success criteria may be denoted as Not Applicable. The add-in must not cause the combined user agent (hosting...
Eric: in terms of style, software wishes to claim conformance, it's rather the claimant that wishes to claim conformance, stylistic or editorial thing
<Jan> ...user agent plus installed extension or plug-in) to fail any success criteria that the hosting user agent would otherwise pass.
Greg: I do have one more substantial playing. The second sentence: I just want to make sure that were not allowing them to claim that they pass when they only – when they actually fail a bunch of success criteria. Does this open the door for them to just say not applicable – are we giving them too much leeway to decide what to categorize not applicable?
Jan: doesn't the last sentence take care of it – you have to imagine yourself combined with the user agent and you can't fail anything that it would otherwise pass
Greg: here's an exception to that
– agent that does not render time-based media – doesn't show
media. Then you install plug-in which adds the ability to play
movies. So before the user agent wanted its own conformance
claim said NA two all the things related to time-based media.
The plug-in should not be able to say well, we don't do
captions that's okay were just going to do NA –...
... we're not...
... forcing our host user agent from past to fail it was NA and it still NA
Jan: you can't do that, now they do time-based media, and so they fail
Greg: if we have examples to clarify it for people it will cut down on any misinterpretations
Jan: yes – examples in implementing
Greg: I agree
Making sure we have addressed everything you put in survey
Jeanne: concerned about listing included and excluded technologies
Jan: those testing decide what should be included
Eric: my understanding up until now has been that both included and excluded technologies were both within the subset of the content technologies that were rendered, so it was my understanding was that it was a comprehensive list of technologies rendered
Jan: you're right – so whatever is not in the included list is in the excluded list
Jeanne: remember, we are the ones who are going to be doing this
Greg: if we were to do a claim for Firefox and they can do math ML – would it be okay for us to do a claim the completely ignores the fact that it can do math ML?
Jeanne: why put extra work on ourselves?
Greg: it does open us up to browsers claiming conformance, but until you read excluded technologies you find out that they're not doing it for HTML 5…
Jan: how long would it be take for something like that to be dug up and put all over the web
Eric: I guess we are talking about whether the sum of the included and excluded technologies is a comprehensive list are not
Jeanne: we do not want to make this a comprehensive list
Eric: up until we discussed this
last week my preference was not to make it a comprehensive
... even though I was in favor of an approach that sounds closer to what Jeanne is saying we did decide to go a different way. But I'm willing to consider a non-comprehensive list.
Greg: I'm willing to go with it
as well. Companies are willing to go through amazing gymnastics
and used tortured logic. But I don't see it as an advantage for
companies filling in the excluded list at all if – sounds like
they are not required to anymore –so they can just leave it
blank. Exactly the same as not addressing it in either list. I
can live with that of people want to go that...
Jan: I would like to keep it, if we want to soften the language – the main formats – something like that. It was on the excluded list it would be easy to spot for on the excluded list.
Eric: pursuing this route I would kind of go back to what my original proposal – enumerating a set of at least one rendered content technologies is mandatory but enumerating one or more excluded technologies would be optional
Jan: I prefer it not to be completely optional because you're right, Greg's example you don't want to duck out of, for example HTML for Firefox. It tails off to some pretty unimportant stuff so can we put it in there and just soften it?
Kelly: where does this leave us?
Jan: if it's conquered to be one of the other, fine
Greg: my preference would be to keep it if we could, but I'm willing to drop it if we have to
Jeanne: what I suggest is we work on softening that language during editing and run it by the group next week
<jeanne> ACTION: jeanne to soften the wording of Excluded/ Included Technologies so that we are not requiring a comprehensive list. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/25-ua-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-825 - Soften the wording of Excluded/ Included Technologies so that we are not requiring a comprehensive list. [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2013-05-02].
Eric: I have a question – is it our approach that if there is a constraint imposed by the platform that the user agent or the claimant can declare a success criteria that is impossible due to the limitation of the agent is not applicable?
Greg: I have three or four sub categories of not applicable and one of those is because the platform limitation
Eric: do we include that language in our document right now
Greg: I'm not sure
I don't consider the whole nonconformance claim to be part of the partial answer
Greg: I don't consider the whole nonconformance claim to be part of the partial answer. List
Eric: shorter list – one of them is if a success criteria higher performance than is claimed then that success criteria is not applicable. That could be at the head of the list
<jeanne> ACTION: item to jeanne to find Greg's email and include the list of reasons of why a success criterion can be declared not applicable. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/25-ua-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Error finding 'item'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/tracker/users>.
Jeanne: except that sometimes AA is something different
Greg: be careful, there's a very limited set of rationale for why you claim something is not applicable. I don't know of anything in level A that becomes not applicable because of something you're doing in AA
Eric: only if the success criteria of the not applicable exceeds the level of conformance
Greg: if they're only going for
level a all the ones that were AA or AAA could be marked with
something else such as not claimed to distinguish it from
non-applicable. Because I'd like to keep none applicable for
something that meets one of those three or four very specific
things and you know what the answer is as opposed to were not
even dealing with this becausewe are not bothering to...
... check the AAA's.
Jan: I agree, it's just blank
Jeanne: that's the goal – only give people the tests for the level they need
Greg: people may have their own forms
Jeanne: very few people like to fill a conformance claims because their lawyers don't like it
Eric: if the claims are our job it seems backwards. Hopefully there's motivation for them to make the claim. I can't see it as being up to us
Jeanne: the only reason is up to us is we have to prove
Kelly: we are at the stopping point. We pulled down a couple thorny issues. Two things for next time, how do we shorten our timeline, do things in parallel. We also have to think about her levels.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138 of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: KimPatch Inferring Scribes: KimPatch Default Present: Jeanne, +1.609.734.aaaa, Jan, Kim_Patch, Greg_Lowney, KFORD Present: Eric Greg_Lowney Jan Jeanne KFORD Kim_Patch Regrets: Jim Simon Found Date: 25 Apr 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/04/25-ua-minutes.html People with action items: item jeanne[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]