<trackbot> Date: 02 July 2015

<scribe> scribe: janina

cn: We are taking up the doc -- Result of our CfC
... We'll set up on W3C github
... However, prefer to use W3C Issue Tracker

<JF> +1 to W3C Tracker

cn: Any objection to the above?

[crickets]

<richardschwerdtfeger> +1

<JF> +1 to the working proposal

cn: Next issue -- How to move forward
... Concerns include properly encapsulated ... building on Joanie's Longdesc
... We have 5 alternatives on linking right now in order to see available options
... We're not takingall to rec, of course
... Somehow, we get to 1
... We propose to published an FPWD with all 5, but clearly document that at least 4 are expected to go away by rec time
... One reason for early FPWD is to start the patent exclusion clock
... Also, a formal draft -- the FPWD -- arguably gets better review

jf: How weill we narrow 5 down to 1?

cn: We'll look for agreement to implement
... That will influence what stays, clearly
... Next we would look at objections and their rationales
... Then we ask the HTML WG (or perhaps by then Web Apps) what draws least objections
... If nothing implemented, then we can't go further, of course
... Perhaps code in content, or perhaps in browser ...
... If we have multiple options implemented, we ask preference

pc: How to you propose to ask implementers that question?

cn: Will propose to the HTML-WG directly
... We'll take it directly to the Media TF
... Key is sufficient feedback from enough implementors

jf: It was my impression that Media TF F2F in April gave us a general direction consensus
... There was fine tuning to do, but the basics were agreed, I believe

cn: Yes, a consensus on a particular direction, but it had two posibilities still
... Both are in this doc
... For completeness, per advice of the Media TF Chair, we've also looked at other suggestions previously made and added those as well
... I expect people will gravitate to one of the two discussed in TF F2F
... Difference today is we have a doc that shows what the spec looks like laid out in candidate form
... I expect this cycle just once--but that depends on getting implementations
... Is there objection here toward going to FPWD with multiple approaches listed?

jf: Feels a bit wierd process

pc: Agreed
... Can't recall this approach previously
... I'm trying to think if anything wrong with this approach
... Can't think of an example of this approach previously, but seems possibly the best plan -- just unusual

<chaals> JS: only other way I see to go is have 5 alternative documents which seems excessive.

<Zakim> chaals, you wanted to explain who would be upset and how…

cn: Not sure about precedent -- Certainly docs have changed as work continues
... Patent search folks would be most annoyed, probably
... Perhaps we get that kind of objection -- then we're figuring out what to do with the objection
... It's possible we publish, then near end of patent disclosure period we get exclusions, and we're looking at how to proceed
... Believe that's low probability
... It would be far less efficient to start on one option, get someway down the road, then have pushback that sends us to another option ...

jf: Think this doc is a combo of three separate approaches in wiki

cn: One clear way we have progress is that some ideas suggested in the F2F are now demonstrably problematic, because we have this spec
... That's valuable
... Out of F2F src and track seemed equal, but no longer

<paulc> I suggest we explicitly ask the W3C team if publishing a FPWD with multiple choices of approaches is appropriate. I would rather "ask for permission" than "ask for forgiveness".

pc: I suspect we should ask permission rather than chance forgivness on this approach. I expect we'd get permission, but should ask

lq: Reason for WD is we haven't decided on a final approach

<Zakim> chaals, you wanted to say "yes we will (have to" get permission

lq: Almost any WD that's short of LC has issues

cn: We have to get permission to go FPWD. So, we will explicitly ask

Canvas - are we there yet

rs: Mark not here, nor on line at the moment
... We don't know any progress

Web Components

cn: Please see email on list about this

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2015Jul/0000.html

cn: Some of what we want to do, e.g. date picker, is unclear whether this approach suffices
... So we need use cases and more info -- examples
... This also applies to tab panels
... We need better coverage of the kinds of things we might extend

<LJWatson> Panel prototypes using Web Components: http://bkardell.github.io/common-panel/prototype/panelset-element.html

face to face

cn: Seems will be quite small
... Register immediately, please!
... Accomodations need -- talk to me by Friday AM
... Expect to do a deal of work on the above
... If dialin, please advise

janina: Yes, please

Action item review: https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open

<chaals> action-317?

<trackbot> action-317 -- Charles McCathie Nevile to Look at the mse and spliced advertising cases in particular 05/01/2015 -- due 2015-07-02 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/317

cn: Expect to do this during the F2F

<chaals> action-317 due in 8 days

<trackbot> Set action-317 Look at the mse and spliced advertising cases in particular 05/01/2015 due date to 2015-07-10.

cn: Other items?

Adjournment

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)

Succeeded: s/waves//
Succeeded: s/RAND/patent/
Succeeded: i/rs: Mark not here, nor on line at the moment/Topic: Canvas - are we there yet
Succeeded: i/cn: Seems will/Topic: face to face
Found Scribe: janina
Inferring ScribeNick: janina
Present: janina Rich LJWatson JF Liam_Quin paulc Joanie
Found Date: 02 Jul 2015
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/07/02-html-a11y-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.