See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: LJWatson
SF: Did anyone see the email I sent/?
<SteveF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013May/0051.html
SF: Work has slowed on this
document. Proposed some scope clarifications and other
actions.
... Essentially that we complete the sections in the document
as it stands.
... When I spoke to Cynthia at the F2F last month she explained
she was focused on other things at the moment. Would therefore
like to see someone step up to take this document forward
actively.
DM: Are you looking for editors or testers?
SF: Both.
... It needs people with good experience/understanding of the
different APIs.
DM: Sounds like there is overlap between this and the test harness?
JS: Think we should try to get a little more input here from PF if we can. The timing for doing this may not be ideal though.
<paulc> When this document was last published we published a total of 9 documents: http://www.w3.org/News/2012#entry-9615
SF: That's ok. Just want to get
the discussion going.
... Also suggested the document be made normative. Think this
would make it more useful.
<paulc> While we are discussing this can someone remind me of the status of HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives? http://www.w3.org/TR/html-alt-techniques/
SF: Recommend moving doc to Github. Makes it easier to manage.
JS: Gitbub is certainly a more modern tool. You see this as being part of HTML5.1?
SF: Yes.
PC: Last published this on TR page in Oct 2012. What's the status of other docs like the alt techniques?
SF: Will remove the normative
content, and it'll become a note.
... Some of the content will be brought into the HTML5
spec.
PC: That's 5.1?
SF: My understanding is that Alt techniques will go into 5.0.
PC: Where is this plan recorded?
SF: The plan to update the spec is rcorded in various bugs/discussions, with chairs and editors etc.
PC: I don't recall getting the WG to agree to that.
JS: Through conversations with the editors we agreed this approach.
PC: But where is the/an email that gives me the current status of this?
SF: With the API doc it isn't a priority, I just wanted to get the discussion going. With the Alt techniques doc I'll put the edits out for review. After that 5.1 review, then I'll ask if it's ok to move it back to 5.0.
<paulc> Alt stuff latest email from Dec 2012: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Team/team-html-editors/2012Dec/0051.html
SF: Hope to have the 5.1 edit available by the end of the week.
PC: Last discussion on the
editors list about this seems to be January. Will take an
informal action to establish the next steps for this.
... Challenge you to make progress from the last discussion in
January.
JS: Steve should have the edits complete by the end of the week.
<SteveF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2013May/0152.html
SF: Link above is for email I sent out today.
PC: Was this change anchored on a bug?
SF: On the overall bug.
PC: Overall bugs?
SF: Will find the different bugs and circulate.
PC: Would help to have a summary email, including which bugs it references, what the plan is etc.
SF: Ok.
PC: That email says it's a 5.1 change?
SF: Yes. I'm making changes to 5.1. Once that's been reviewed, the goal is to backport it back into 5.0.
PC: Suggest you include that in your summary.
SF: Yes.
JS: To circle back to the Alt techniques, once all this 4.8 editing is finished, we should see what's left in the Alt techniques doc and decide what to do with it.
SF: Yes.
DM: I'm interested in the API doc, would need coaching, but could put in a couple of hours?
SF: Looks like we're not going to worry about the API doc for the moment. It does need someone with enough knowledge/experience to drive it forward. Really appreciate all offers of help though.
JS: This was Chaals' action to
co-ordinate with the chairs about testing the HTML5 spec.
... Chaals suggested we could start looking at this on these TF
calls.
... We're looking for some guidance.
PC: Think we're suffering from timing. National holidays mean meetings have been less regular last week/ne.
JS: It's the same for the accessibility WGs.
PC: Ok, I may take this discussion offline so you may not see a response immediately.
JS: Ok.
JF: Status is that after the F2F,
the plan was to establish next steps on this.
... Support from implementors will be critical.
... Janina and I need to get on with utilising the media
sub-team to work on this.
JS: John, can we chat this weekend?
JF: Yes.
LW: These are the bugs identified by triage that need reviewing by various sub-teams.
<JF> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13430
JF: Would like to query this
bug.
... It appears to be editorial.
SF: With my editors hat on, I'm happy to accept Hixie's comment.
JF: At first glance I
agree.
... If no objections I'll close the bug and close my
corresponding action.
... Ok, closed.
LW: Bug triage hasn't met for a
couple of weeks. We resume next week with several new
members.
... Please can everyone try to clear the decks of the resolved
needsInfo/wontFix bugs.
SF: Returning to the Alt techniques, would welcome feedback from the TF.
SF: Borrowed this from last
week's agenda. Anything to discuss?
... It's a public holiday on Monday in the UK.
JS: Also in the USA.
<SteveF> https://github.com/w3c/aria-in-html
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) Succeeded: s/moreinput/more input/ Found Scribe: LJWatson Inferring ScribeNick: LJWatson Default Present: David_MacDonald, John_Foliot, LJWatson, darobin, paulc, SteveF, hober, janina, [Microsoft], Suzanne_Taylor, chaals, [IPcaller], steve Present: Janina_Sajka David_McDonald Chaals_McCathie_Nevile Steve_Faulkner Léonie_Watson Paul_Cotton John_Foliot 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: 23 May 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/05/23-html-a11y-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]