See also: IRC log
webex: https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=mf2cde14c5140de2a3a9a333212ab1cc9
tzviya: published FPWD with the
questions
... we will shop this to DPUB and IDPF
Michael: the questions are pro forma, no need to formally answer these questions
tzviya: what about integration with ARIA documentation and picking up some terms in ARIA master?
janina: work with RIch
https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues
scribe: and michael set up email for issues as well
<pkra> https://github.com/w3c/aria/labels/dpub ?
scribe: will add tzviya and ivan so that we can add to GH
<pkra> just a more precise link (in case my audio is horrible)
<MichaelC> DPub ARIA comments list archive
janina: process of resolving
issues
... when do we deal with comments that come in
... it is up to TF to decide whether to deal with comments as
they arrive or deal with comments in bulk as one comment may
affect another
... group needs to consider issues and resolve formally, inform
commentor about decision
... commentor can escalate to formal objection if desire
tzviya: i would prefer to deal with the issues that already exist because they have already been resolved in existing draft
michael: caution - avoid closing issues too early because a contradictory issue may come later that requires re-opening a closed issues
janina: target is written response, perhaps an email
ivan: what is relatinship bw github issues and email responses?
michael: you want people to
freely discuss issues on GH, but need official group response
on GH
... if issue is migrated from comment tracker, someone should
send that from tracker
ivan: in another WG (CSV on the
web), we decided to migrate things to GH
... there is a good labelling system.
Tomorrow is our first transition request, and we'll see if PLH accepts with just GH
michael: I would like to preserve the formal WG consensus response
ivan: that is good, but we should also put that in the GH response
tzviya: issue management will be on GH, consensus discussion as usual, email to be sent for archive, link to email in GH
michal: we may need to engage
people working on core mapping
... Rich, Joseph, Fred Esch
... and others
Janina: we have worked on this before, and the people who work on the docs are the devs
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say recruit AAPI person here, or send someone to #AAPI group
michael: talking w some of these
people will give an idea of how to proceed
... but it will depend on some knowledge of a11y mappings
... so, we should invite them to this meeting, and someone from
this meeting should join Joseph's A11y API meeting
ivan: what is best path?
janina: best path is rich
... it might be a good start to ask Joseph to join this
call
tzviya: I'll invite Joseph to join next week's call, and adjsut timing if need be
michael: for prep, look at the core accessibility API mappings
<MichaelC> Core-AAM
ivan: if a role does not define explicit mapping, does the superclass mapping apply?
michael: the taxonomy is more of
a design aid than a parent class
... it would be best to copy the properties and indicate what
we've done
ivan: I ask because mike smith indicated that if we create 200 new definitions, it will be very difficult to implement
michael: my recollection is that
this was from a validator, not implementor perspective
... basic definitions are fairly straightforward
<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to talk about aliasing
Shane: James C commented some
time ago. Implemenintg roles that are essentially aliases of
existing roles is pretty easy.
... as long as we don't get into states and properties, we are
OK
Janina: my recollection is that prefix resolves validation issues
tzviya: we will hopefully begin
AAM work next week
... can we deal with pre-FPWD issues in GH?
ivan: it would be useful to milestone these issues and indicate that these are pre-FPWD
michael: indicate that these issues rely on other issues, so they are all closed
ivan: can put as many labels as want to in GH
michael: will go through michael or to create dpub prefixed labels
<ivan_> https://help.github.com/articles/searching-issues/
tzviya: most of the issues that
exist are related to the ARIA extension that did not yet
exist
... if we just point to the ARIA extenions mechanism, is that
OK?
ivan: devil's advocate - see
issue 50 https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/50
... this is about control of vocabulary, is this covered by
extension mechanism?
shane: yes, because the mechanism discusses the socializing of the terms
tzviya: consider opening issues list for extension mechanism
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/reserve/preserve/ Succeeded: s/?// No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: tzviya Inferring Scribes: tzviya Present: tzviya_siegman Janina Peter Krautzberger MattGarrish Michael_Cooper ShaneM WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dpub-aria/2015Jul/0005.html Got date from IRC log name: 09 Jul 2015 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/07/09-dpub-aria-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]