See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 19 March 2015
<janina> Welcome back, Paul!
<paulc> Paul on mute
<paulc> bad cold
<janina> Ah, sorry to hear that!
<scribe> scribenick: LJWatson
JS: Additions to the agenda?
JS: The CFC on the HTML API
mapping closed last night, with positive feedback.
... Will issue the decision this evening Eastern time.
... If the HTML CFC happens soon, we should be able to hit our
target date in March.
... After meetings within PF, domain leads etc. we're resolved
that PF does not need to co-own the ARIA in HTML module.
JS: Suggestion that in future we
should have the ability to run concurrent CFC with PF and HTML
WGs.
... Only positive responses to date.
... GOal is to keep non-controversial things moving forward
effectively.
JS: Is it on? Is there an agenda?
PC: Chairs are not planning on an HTML WG meeting. The media TF will meet Wd/THu, and we're waiting to hear about the A11y TF.
s/Wd/THu,/Wd/Thu,/
JS: Not enough people can make it, so no TF meeting I think.
JS: Difficult to discuss without
Rich.
... Hit regions... there is interest in putting support into
Chrome, fairly quickly it seems.
... With the implimentation in FF, Chrome would give us our two
implementations.
MS: Dominic Mazzoni thinks the spec is ok.
JS: WHat's the optimum trajectory?
PC: As a minimum we need to republish at whatever step in the process the doc is currently at. We also need implementation example evidence.
JS: Need an indication from Google on Chrome implementation timetable.
MS: Don't know at this
point.
... We have an implementation report at about 80%, with the
info from Chrome we'll have that wrapped up.
JS: We've learned definitively
that there is nothing in this doc that is not already in the
HTML spec. So thinking is that we don't need to publish in two
places.
... One option is to file bugs on the HTML spec and get changes
made there, other option is to reduce guidance in HTML spec and
retain two documents.
LQ: Have done some editing with
Shane's help.
... We're getting it into shape for publication as a
stand-alone note.
... Have added examples.
... Remaining edit is to take out pie chart example, maybe
replace with a bar chart example and change the topic. Plus a
couple of minor things.
... We could reorganise it to make it clearer, and it could do
with a serious copy-edit too.
<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to propose that we publish a note immediately that says it is no longer being worked on and reference HTML 5.0
<paulc> See http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-html-picture-element-20140722/ for a WG Note for material that was completely included into HTML5 and therefore was not duplicated in the WG Note. Note there are no References in this WG Note.
SM: Suggest we publish as a note, then as a TF we feed future guidance to Steve to be made in the HTML spec.
PC: Agree with step 1 of Shane's
suggestion.
... Step 2 seems possible, with bugs filed on the definitive
source.
JB: Anyone here from WCAG
WG?
... LIam could you follow up with Michael Cooper?
<Zakim> liam, you wanted to say ok with emptyish note; we could continue to edit in editor's draft until happy
LQ: Yes.
... Would be fine with this TF publishing a note. We can
continue editing in the editor's draft, with a note explaining
our intent. Then when it's stable, moving it to HTML would be
fine with me.
... Best practices in the alt doc needs to mention other specs,
and possibly UA bugs, which might not be appropriate for
content within the spec itself?
PC: If you have text pointing at
browser bugs, that sounds like it would be more appropriate to
go into the bug itself?
... AC reps approved this...
... If concerned about something in the spec, file a bug.
LQ: We publish a new, empty, note that explains the advice can now be found in the HTML spec. We (the TF) then continue editing a separate document, with a view to moving the advice into the HTML spec once it's stable.
<liam> (1) we republish the note but as empty, pointing to the HTML spec, "This is no longer being developed as a separate specification, there is no content here. You can find the alt text attribute guidelines in the HTML 5 specification. "
PC: If you do a CFC here to publish the note, then do it at the WG level with an explanation that the WG note will point to the HTML spec.
<liam> (2) we continue to work on the editor's draft (adding text explaining what's going on)
JS: WOuld be useful to have this
prposed new note available, so we can point to it in the
CFC.
... Liam can you do that?
LQ: Yes.
<liam> (3) when we have consensus on the text, it goes into HTML (via bugs or via editing HTMl 5.1) and possibly also into techniques and tutorials
SF: The part of the spec that
deals with the elements of HTML (where this alt advice will
live) will become a separate module.
... So would be good if we could get together on working on
that same document. So working directly on the module.
JS: Steve, you're proposing that instead of working on a stand-alone editor's draft, we work directly on the spec module?
SF: Yes.
<ShaneM> +1
JS: I see no problem.
LQ: It's fine. It's basically the
same plan.
... Would rather work on the editor's draft and agree text more
before moving it.
SF: That's ok.
<Zakim> liam, you wanted to note this is not inconsistent with what emerged today as a plan
PC: Steve, don't think your suggestion changes the proposed plan.
SF: Ok.
PC: We need to be careful about references from the note into 5.1, because as the HTML spec separatees into modules those references will change.
JS: Has been discussion, but not sure where it ended up.
SM: We're working on related tasks. General concensus is that the idea of note is good, and we have some basic semantics.
JS: Believe we've dealt with all
but one comment, where we need clarification.
... JS: Don't know that the wiki is up to date.
... Assuming our edits are accepte, we're on track to
publish.
s/accepte,accepted,/
JS: Want to give guidance to WGs working on APIs. Proposal is to finish the note as it is, then go back and either create a second doc or a second version of the note that includes WebRTC.
action-142?
<trackbot> action-142 -- Cynthia Shelly to File HTML bug about methods that should fail when an element has @hidden set -- due 2015-02-12 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/142
CS: It's old and has been overcome.
action-189?
<trackbot> action-189 -- Cynthia Shelly to Investigate what MS products do with lang attribute -- due 2015-02-08 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/189
CS: Still relevant.
action-226?
<trackbot> action-226 -- Steve Faulkner to Tell james nurthen about the outstanding issues on imagemaps -- due 2014-01-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/226
SF: Um.
LQ: From Jan last year.
SF: Will try to recall/find out.
JS: Relating to the work on the ARIA APG?
SF: Don't think so.
... Filed browser bugs about imagemaps last year, perhaps
related.
action-274?
<trackbot> action-274 -- Cynthia Shelly to Add more information to https://www.w3.org/bugs/public/show_bug.cgi?id=13572 -- due 2015-02-08 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/274
CS: Bug is old.
... Give me a month?
action-297?
<trackbot> action-297 -- Cynthia Shelly to Present a proposal on menus -- due 2015-09-08 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/297
CS: Give me until 6th Aug.
action-303?
<trackbot> action-303 -- Shane McCarron to Present alt doc changes -- due 2015-02-12 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/303
action-307?
<trackbot> action-307 -- Shane McCarron to Illustrate the duplications between html5 and alt-techniques -- due 2015-02-19 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/307
LQ: Both can be closed.
<ShaneM> close action 307
<ShaneM> action-307 close
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140 of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/Wd/THu,/Wd/Thu,/ Succeeded: s/Can someone take over scribing a moment.// Succeeded: s/PC: Step 2 seems possible./PC: Step 2 seems possible, with bugs filed on the definitive source./ FAILED: s/accepte,accepted,// Found ScribeNick: LJWatson Inferring Scribes: LJWatson Default Present: Janina, paulc, Joanmarie_Diggs, +1.617.319.aaaa, MarkS, Liam, Judy, LJWatson, ShaneM, Cynthia_Shelly, [IPcaller] Present: Janina paulc Joanmarie_Diggs +1.617.319.aaaa MarkS Liam Judy LJWatson ShaneM Cynthia_Shelly [IPcaller] Regrets: Rich Found Date: 19 Mar 2015 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/03/19-html-a11y-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]