See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 03 September 2015
scribenick LJWatson
JS: No changes.
JF: No-one on the call at present. PLH is running late.
JS: Chaals has worked more on the
draft and proposes it's ready for FPWD.
... Looking for consensus from the group
<janina> http://chaals.github.io/html-transcript/html-transcript-src.html
JF: Would like to read through
this. Apologies for not doing it sooner.
... Could I take a formal task to do this? What's the
deadline?
JS: No particular deadline.
... I expect there will be some version of this TF going
forward.
... Concern was expressed previously whether we needed to have
implementors lined up before going to FPWD.
LW: Can I suggest we formally ask the Media TF for feedback?
JF: Good idea, but I'd like to take a look through it first.
<paulc> The clock is ticking here and currently the HTML WG will no longer exist after Sep 30. So even if the HTML Wg publishes this where will future work be done.
<scribe> ACTION: JF to review the Transcript spec and report back to the TF. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/09/03-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-331 - Review the transcript spec and report back to the tf. [on John Foliot - due 2015-09-10].
PC: What does it mean to have the
HTML WG publish it as FPWD, then have the WG disappear. This
group needs to think about where this work will happen.
... Taking it to the WICG would be a good idea.
... Chaals himself said that getting implementor support is
important.
... So what is the short and long term plan for this spec?
JS: Best answer is that we don't know. We don't know about the future of this TF.
+1 to taking it to the WICG (after JF's review).
JF: Personally I have strong
opposition to moving this to WICG.
... I think the CG idea was a failed experiment.
... Maybe we should reach out to the Media TF. I want this to
remain aligned to a WG though.
<paulc> There are several possibilities for future processing a spec like Transcript. Sending it to WICG is one possibility. Asking it be included in the scope of the Timed Media WG charter is another possibility.
PC: I think you're prejudging
WICG, and tarring it with a brush too broad.
... There is specific text in the Web Platforms/Timed Media
charters that says specs will be incubated in the WICG.
JF: CGs have lack of resources, mostly they're dormant.
PLH: When you say lack of resources, do you think a WG would have more resources?
JF: A CG is just a wiki page and email list, no access to resourcs like conference facilities etc.
<paulc> John: I suggest you look at the discussions on http://discourse.wicg.io/ where a lot of WICG discussion is taking place.
PLH: Transcript is a strong fit for the Timed Media WG.
JF: Finding a home for this work is important.
<paulc> Sinec Jul 13 there have been 482 emails to http://discourse.wicg.io/ - This is not "crickets".
LW: There are several active conversations taking place in the WICG at prsent, and about a third have some accessibility component.
PC: 482 emails on the WICG is active, wouldn't you agree?
JF: My thoughts are more instinct at this point. I'll keep an open mind.
PLH: If it doesn't get momentum in WICG, it won't have enough momentum to make it to Recc.
JF: Agreed.
JB: Are there alternative
placements to this CG?
... We could try the WICG, but have a backup plan.
PC: Let's ask the team members
their best advice. My question is what we do with this short
and long term.
... Short term we have a request from the editor to publish a
FPWD.
... What I don't understand is whether it makes sense for the
TF to publish now, four weeks before the existing WGs
close.
PLH: I'm ambivalent.
JB: Would be strongly in favour of publishing it.
LW: Suggest we defer this to next week after JF's review when we have Chaals and Janina on the call.
JB: Good idea.
JF: Agree we should get it
published somehow. This is a joint TF between HTML and PF, and
HTML will expire at the end of this month and PF is under
charter review.
... Who will own HTML when the WG closes?
PLH: Web Platforms WG will. It's clearly in the charter.
JF: Then we wait and discuss joint publication.
PLH: It could also be a note.
JB: Need to be sure nothing falls through the cracks.
LW: DDon't think we can resolve this today, let's move on.
RS: We're getting timeouts on some tests. Don't know why.
PLH: If you don't click on the
test, it will timeout for sure.
... Is it because you took too long whilst checking the acc API
mapping?
RS: Don't think so, but can retry faster.
PLH: It may be that the timeout of the test harness is generally too short.
RS: We're trying to look at the API mappings at the same time, so that could be it.
JB: What's your projection for getting it wrapped up?
RS: We have one bug filed with Google, and an overall bug with Firefox where all height/widths are 4px short.
PLH: The clock is ticking.
RS: This isn't my only job I'm sorry.
PLH: This isn't just you, it's the whole thing.
RS: The mapping is ok, but the drawing is off by 4px.
PLH: 4px is no reason to wait.
RS: I'll check back with Google about their bug then.
PLH: I'm waiting for you to tell
me it has bugs, but can be shipped.
... We have a two week window. I'm willing to ask the director
for a two week extension, if it means we don't lose all this
good work.
JB: What needs to happen to the doc for this to go to PR?
PC: I was a pointer to the test suite, to the test results, and to the bugs that were filed, and a candidate recommendation proposal document.
Plus some indication of how those bugs were addressed.
JB: Is there anything the TF needs to do?
PC: The TF should be comfortable with the results, but I suggest this document is owned by the WG and that the TF can comment via the CFC.
JB: Sounds like a good approach.
Anyone opposed?
... To confirm, we will not run this through the TF, but will
file comments during the CFC instead.
LW: On the call last week Janina
had an action to send feedback on behalf of the TF.
... I can forward those comments to close the loop, because TPG
referred to those comments when filing its AC review.
LQ: There is a new draft. It's a lot shorter.
<liam> https://w3c.github.io/alt-techniques/index.html
JB: What is the timetable,
considering Shane hasn't looked at the draft, and it's been
some time since the TF reviewed the document.
... Is there a summary of changes?
LW: No summary. I've rearranged it, added some things, removed or replaced others.
JB: Seems like the TF should review this draft pretty quickly.
<paulc> If we are going to publish the Transcript spec as a WG Note, could we also publish HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives as a WG Note and the bugs could then be filed against 5.1.
JS: Don't think we're under constraint. This will constitute modifications to HTML 5.1.
PC: Earlier on the call we
mentioned publishing Transcript as a note. As Janina said, the
objective here is to use this doc to file bugs against the 5.1
spec.
... So based on this TF note, we file bugs against HTML
5.1.
JS: We agreed some time ago that
we'd stub the original note as no longer relevant.
... The purpose of this doc was just to allow us to get
consensus on what bugs should be filed. It isn't intended for
publication in its own right.
<Zakim> liam, you wanted to note we've agreed not to publish this document as a note, but as a change to HTML 5.1
LQ: Agreed. This text isn't headed towards being a note. It's just to help with bug reports.
PC: I would just like to know what the TF plans to do. If you're just using the recc track template because it helps craft the material, that's fine.
LQ: Houdini intends to open up
the web engine in the browser to JavaScript. So people can
write their own CSS properties using JS.
... The idea is that it's taking too long to add features to
CSS, for example for dPub purposes.
... It isn't clear what the accessibility implications might
be.
... Injecting textual content into the DOM is one possible
area. Also possible ways to subvert the acc APIs.
... Recommend we monitor this as it progresses.
JS: One concern with CSS has been
injected content.
... This raises that concern to a new level.
... Something for TPAC perhaps.
JF: It's a double-edged sword.
CSS generated content may/may not be a problem.
... Most screen readers seem to support it now. The question
about layout is interesting though.
LQ: These APIs are in a creative phase now, it's very early days. If we're commenting, please be gentle because we don't want to stop the creativity.
PC: Can I just confirm the plan for Transcript?
LW: JF will review Transcript for next week, then we'll discuss it whilst both Chaals and Janina are expected to be on the call.
PC: If I'm unable to make the call next week, please could someone let me know directly by email of the outcome?
JF: I'll undertake to do that.
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/gruop./group/ Succeeded: s/to CGs/to this CG/ Succeeded: s/hapen/happen/ No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: LJWatson Inferring Scribes: LJWatson Present: janina Joanmarie_Diggs JF Liam LJWatson Plh Judy Rich_Schwerdtfeger Regrets: Chaals Found Date: 03 Sep 2015 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/09/03-html-a11y-minutes.html People with action items: jf[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]