See also: IRC log
scribe: Fred
<MichaelC> mc: issue with zakim and last meeting - no minutes
<MichaelC> mc: will post meetings from Feb 4 and 11
<MichaelC> RESOLUTION: publish minutes from 18th as submitted ( with attendees - zakim issue)
<MichaelC> XQuery Update Facility 3.0
<MichaelC> Linked Data Patch Format
<MichaelC> Media Capture from DOM Elements
jf: all part of a bigger issue, need subteam
jf: concern - coming from DOM can only capture 1 stream
<MichaelC> action-1580 due 2 weeks
<trackbot> Set action-1580 Review screen capture http://www.w3.org/tr/screen-capture/ due date to 2015-03-25.
js: need a task force item for media related specs
<MichaelC> action-1580: also http://www.w3.org/TR/mediacapture-fromelement/ and other related specs
<trackbot> Notes added to action-1580 Review screen capture http://www.w3.org/tr/screen-capture/.
js: has questions about spec - may have issues with controller -- we don't know but need to know how it all fits together
js: falls under HTML subteam
jf: proposed face to face in April, one team is the media team
mc: css taking advantage of capability to publish once a day...
js: auto publishing may make it difficult to track meaningful differences in spec
<MichaelC> Benchmarking for the Web
mc: dead group
js: wg charter in review, want more reviews - goes through the 23rd, need AC reps to review
js: probably OK to call ourselves the Accessible Platforms WG, will seeing the change over in April
RS: Mary Jo and I have been working on the response - graphics is missing!
mc: if comments add it on, will probably be added
rs: if it is covered that is fine, will need API module...
mc: double checking, SVG a11y is covered
rs: graphics?\
mc: we have the wording - escape clause,
cs: WAPA
js: do you want PF time to talk about WAPA?
cs: yes, time next week and other the following.
rs: as long as we call it ARIA something.... we're covered?
mc: looking at wording, as an ARIA module were covered
cs: can switch WAPA back to ARIA-xxx if that makes it easier
mg: DPub not at first working draft yet, need advice on requirements
mg: DPub call tomorrow at 9am (Boston) - if someone here could attend that would help
rs and js will attend
js: when there is enough stuff that you want feedback, MC puts in the wrapper stuff...
Tz: would appreciate comments on potential collisions -
rs: need to go through those particular items
mg: wrt collisions - want to resolve, and want to know if it is a collision or a valid subclass
mg: in the terms of educational semantics - may want to step back as there are parallel efforts - Mark Hakkinin....
mg: starting and getting back at a later draft would not be a problem
rs: QTI is not limited to books, right?
mg: open question - whether it is a separate module
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to mention taxonomy
rs: what if you have a slider, but you want to call it out as a thermometer for the test - not in ARIA now, leads to control pattern
mc: as we add roles to ARIA - prefer inheritance, avoid duplicating and colliding roles
mc:: we should look at it from time to time...
js: concerning ARIA in HTML - thinks it should be a joint deliverable
js: we have joint deliverable, and we have the HTML task force because we weren't getting response
js: the task force gets agreement before published, and we provided input after and sometimes they said no...
js: we may not want to look at the details of a heartbeat ... but that is today... and if we wanted to get it back into the status it may be difficult to do
js: we should think about ways to work with the HTML working group to publish as it is a bit heavy now
js: maybe we should go cocurrent it would be faster
js: if we get several 3-4 days notice, then we could let them publish.
cs: what does Steve Faulkner think?
js: he does not want it
js: what we have in this document is ARIA and not just HTML
cs: like the idea that we have a few days to consider it, would like one day to be Wednesday... so we could discuss it here
cs: don't think it will get in a bad relationship again,
cs: don't want to get in a fight with Steve
js: agreed
rs: I don't want to review every doc, but if there is something serious I would like to be able to call it back
cs: if there was a way I could filter them, HTML produces lots of docs
js: we would use the task force...
cs: if it wasn't a task force doc?
js: I would make it a task force doc, that is the way it would work
cs: how do we make it the docs we care about?
js: That is why I am proposing a negative flow
js: saying nothing lets them go forward
cs: matter of overhead and busy work for us
cs: we dont like busy work
rs: they are not going to introduce new ARIA semantics in HTML, we dont want that...
cs: they could think of good ARIA
rs & js: then that goes through us
js: base question - who controls what ARIA does? and it goes into a hybrid spec
rs: I don't want them going into and creating a new roles
rs: if they want new roles, they should come through us, just like we go to them
js: lets look at the negative flow... if we have base control then we can ask the to republish them
js: otherwise if we are in the supplicant role...
rs: don't want HTML creating new ARIA, that goes through us, they could add something that breaks the taxonomy
js: do we prefer that we have a joint deliverable?
rs: I don't care about the joint deliverable, but want to be able to review it..
cs: suggest using task force wording...
cs: diplomatic language will help, not about busy work
<JF> +1 to Cyns comments about working together
js: will propose a resolution tomorrow - on ARIA call
js: want as wide of pf input as possible
cs: what is chaals opinion?
js: hoping Paul would be on call... may not be - he is in China
js: we have until next week resolved, may be resolved in W3C management
cs: tried to talk to Vanderhyden on contrast ratio
cs: may join us on call