See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 17 December 2014
Janina: Group meeting this
morning on extensions for ARIA on digital publishing. They will
set up a GitHub repo under ARIA for the D-Pub work.
... Proposing to add Shane to the joint task force being
created.
... Also Markus, Rich, Susanne and Janina.
Gottfried: New revisions of ISO/IEC 24752:2014 now published.
Janina: We might want to schedule an introduction at some point.
RESOLUTION: publish minutes as submitted
Shane: I have started writing a
process document on how roles would be added.
... Not really volunteering for the new task force.
Janina: This is the last meeting for this year. No meetings on Dec. 24 and 31. Next meeting on Jan. 7.
action-1536?
<MichaelC> close action-1536
<trackbot> action-1536 -- Shane McCarron to Review mixed content for a11y concerns -- due 2014-11-26 -- OPEN
<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/actions/1536
<trackbot> Closed action-1536.
action-1522?
<trackbot> action-1522 -- James Nurthen to Try to find an example where user style sheet cannot override author intent -- due 2014-12-17 -- OPEN
<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/actions/1522
<MichaelC> action-1522 due 3 weeks
<trackbot> Set action-1522 Try to find an example where user style sheet cannot override author intent due date to 2015-01-07.
<MichaelC> XML Inclusions (XInclude) Version 1.1
Michael: Propose too low-level for us.
(agreed)
<MichaelC> URI Specification Community Group
Michael: Create a formal
specification of the URI specification standard. Too low-level
for us?
... Could be a dead group
<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to mention updated RDFa specs.
Shane: Looking at CRs, RDFa has just put out 4 revisions of their specs (PERs). We need to keep track of these.
Michael: Formally, we don't need
to review PERs.
... Usually we would not need to revise our roles spec for
redirecting the links since they would go to the latest
versions.
PER = Proposed Edited Recommendation
Now mixed content (really)
<MichaelC> https://github.com/w3c/webappsec/pull/110/files
Michael: On the icon they generalized the language, now just "notification" for the UA. Under user control they added a note that it should be offered to the a11y API. I think they addressed our concerns.
John: They should really use MUST
rather than SHOULD.
... They are clearly using RFC-2119 language, with a SHOULD on
this note.
Janina: There seem to be a lot of MAYs around, so a MUST would be very strong.
John: There is a MUST just before this.
Michael: What you just read came
from a different section.
... There is an expanding widget...
Janina: We need to look at this in context
James: I agree, it should be a MUST
<MichaelC> Mixed Content Editors´ Draft
Shane: Is there a way to make it a conditional MUST?
<MichaelC> rendered context of the section in question: http://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/mixedcontent/#requirements-user-controls
Michael: We already got the condition there, so a MUST would be appropriate.
<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to say that we need to remember that this document does not define the requirements on the chrome
Shane: This is an aspect of the chrome. I don't think we can put basic requirements on the chrome.
<MichaelC> AWK suggestion of UAAG coverage for UA chrome requirements
Michael: Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3
<MichaelC> http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG20/#gl-AT-access
Janina: We should thank them for their prompt handling, and propose to change a SHOULD to a MUST since it is conditional to the previous sentence. They should also add additional references to UAAG.
Michael: I am hesitant for adding the references. We got feedback in the past that it is the responsibility of the implementers to follow these guidelines.
John: If they don't provide a link to UAAG, that's okay. But we can still give them the link as a reference.
Michael: Okay with that.
Janina: Yes, just as a justification.
(no objection)
<JF> +1 to the proposal
RESOLUTION: PF asks to change the SHOULD into a MUST, and provide a link to the UAAG sections as a justification for this.
<janina> +1
Michael: We sent a comment to Web
Notifications in Oct.
... Text about indicating the language of a notification. What
if that language is null?
... The response was that it must comply with HTML5...
John: I would like to verify whether HTML5 requires @lang.
Janina: Maybe we have a comment
on HTML?
... There is going to be an HTML5.1 and HTML5.2.
Shane: HTML5.0 encourages using @lang on the document root.
Michael: Sounds like we are
proposing to accept their response on this.
... Next issue was the ability to provide alternative text for
the icon.
... The response is basically that it is not their fault if
developers don't follow the specs.
John: With the help of the conformance checker, they will get reminded about this, if we make this mandatory.
Michael: Not sure there is a
conformance checker for Web notifications
... It is probably an API that is rendered by the user agent in
a dialog.
... Unlikely that a conformance checker checks function call
arguments.
Janina: Shall we consider this at our next meeting?
John: There are tools that will run scripts for testing.
Janina: I'd like to more time to consider and rethink our options.
Michael: I'd like to send a response on the first item. And mention that we are still discussing our response on the second one.
Janina: Welcome, Tzviya.
Shane: I offered to write a process document to tell how to define additional roles, as needed in D-Pub.
Tzviya: We will take your process
document. We have some expertise in using ARIA.
... We have done some work with Respec.
Rich: Create a GitHub section for D-Pub. Take the ARIA respec and paste it into this section.
Michael: I can help you to set up
the document in the repository, and provide administrative
support.
... I will provide access to the editors at the top of the
document.
Janina: Email list for the task
force?
... Something like public-dpub-a11y
Michael: What will the posting policy be?
<tzviya_> public-dpub-accessibility@w3.org
Janina: Public reading, anybody can post, moderated
Rich: SVG a11y tf had its first meeting last week. Good start. Next meeting this Friday at 9am EST.
Janina: This meeting is
adjourned. Next PF meeting on Jan. 7.
... Happy holidays, and a happy new year.
actions?