See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 20 June 2013
<scribe> scribe: janina
cn: Current review closes
today
... Now tyeing up loose ends; New comments editorial
... Looking to produce another editor's draft tonight
... Assuming no new technical edit suggestion, CN will start a
CFC based on the new editor's draft
... Thereafter, not expecting new tech issue, but ...
... Else, we need to focus on tests
... We need to show implementability of the spec--that it
works
... Minimum Last Call is 60 days for RAND reasons
... Remaining question whether to fold back to HTML spec, or
keep as stand alone?
... Personally, no strong opinion one way or the other on
this
dm: Asking what the test looks like. Just a test page with longdesc on images?
jb: Want to speak to the question
of stand-alone or back into the HTML spec ...
... Interesting question; many want it now; so a TR earlier
than HTML 5 might satisfy many desiring to use ld
... On the other hand, it may be a problem in that we wouldn't
be able to say: "All the core a11y is in the core HTML
spec"
... Therefore, the more I consider this, the more I prefer to
integrate LD back into HTML spec
cn: Agree with the advantage, main desire now is to get it published
<SteveF> +1 to getting it to rec then looking at re-integration
cn: Shouldn't be that hard for us to move it first, then ask HTML to incorporate it
jb: Agree
cn: Any objections to that
approach?
... OK. Perhaps a CFC on this ...
jb: Perhaps we should do the formality further down the road--at the CR stage.
cn: OK. We'll return to the CFC at some later point
cn: HTML-WG has a doc and a CFC
on it. It identifies portions of the spec they believe don't
need testing
... We're asked to confirm or disagree on any point from our
a11y perspective
<chaals> which bits of HTML5 are so well implemented they don't need testing...
cn: We have a telecon scheduled
18:00Z today and next Thursday to review
... WG has also identified items they believe NEED testing; we
should also do that
sf: Wondering about ARIA mappings
testing plan
... Probably best if we take up testing
cn: They believe ARIA is all OK. Do we suggest testing?
sf: I'll look at that
<chaals> call for consensus in HTML WG on things that won't need testing
js: Unfortunately, media can't meet until mid July
<Zakim> MarkS, you wanted to ask about full transcript
<chaals> MarkS: Issue-194 transcript is specifically mentioned in plan-2014, and if we want to do something about that we need to get it on track
<chaals> JS: THat is one of the three tasks for the subteam. Might be better to run that as an extension spec. We don't seem to be able to get to consensus on that - vendors are simply stopping at an impasse
<chaals> CN: So we might expect two extension proposals?
<SteveF> email sent http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Jun/0049.html
cn: any other subteam?
jb: Should we close some subteams?
cn: It's why I ask as a general
question, not specific team names
... If there are proposals to close specific subteams, that
would be ok
jb: Want to get people people to
start thinking on HTML 5.1 as we are now closing 5.0
... Testing is certainly still ahead for 5.0, but we should
also be thinking 5.1
cn: Asking SF whether there's a 5.0/5.1 diff
ms: Will be posting an accessible version of the WG doc shortly--one that doesn't just rely on color
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) Found Scribe: janina Inferring ScribeNick: janina Default Present: David_MacDonald, Mark_Sadecki, chaals, janina, Judy, SteveF Present: David_MacDonald Mark_Sadecki chaals janina Judy SteveF WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 20 Jun 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-html-a11y-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]