IRC log of pf on 2008-12-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:59:57 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #pf
13:59:57 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/12/05-pf-irc
13:59:59 [janina]
zakim, call janina
13:59:59 [Zakim]
sorry, janina, I don't know what conference this is
14:00:05 [Joshue]
hi GJR and y'all
14:00:26 [Al]
Zakim, what conference is this?
14:00:26 [Zakim]
no conference has been selected, Al
14:00:38 [Al]
Zakim, room for 7?
14:00:39 [Zakim]
ok, Al; conference Team_(pf)14:00Z scheduled with code 26634 (CONF4) for 60 minutes until 1500Z
14:00:42 [oedipus]
meeting: HTML5 Caucus
14:00:50 [Al]
Zakim, code?
14:00:50 [Zakim]
the conference code is 26634 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Al
14:01:01 [janina]
zakim, call janina
14:01:01 [Zakim]
ok, janina; the call is being made
14:01:02 [Zakim]
Team_(pf)14:00Z has now started
14:01:03 [Zakim]
+Janina
14:01:41 [oedipus]
regrets: Gez_Lemon, Laura_Carlson
14:01:42 [Zakim]
-Janina
14:01:43 [Zakim]
Team_(pf)14:00Z has ended
14:01:43 [Zakim]
Attendees were Janina
14:02:07 [oedipus]
rrsagent, make minutes
14:02:07 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/05-pf-minutes.html oedipus
14:02:14 [janina]
zakim, call janina
14:02:14 [Zakim]
ok, janina; the call is being made
14:02:15 [Zakim]
Team_(pf)14:00Z has now started
14:02:16 [Zakim]
+Janina
14:02:45 [oedipus]
rrsagent, pointer?
14:02:45 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2008/12/05-pf-irc#T14-02-45
14:03:00 [Zakim]
+??P3
14:03:29 [Al]
Zakim, who is here?
14:03:29 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Janina, Al
14:03:30 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, Al, janina, Joshue, oedipus, MichaelC, aaronlev, anne, JRG, trackbot
14:03:42 [Zakim]
+Gregory_Rosmaita
14:04:59 [Zakim]
+ +2
14:05:05 [oedipus]
previous: http://www.w3.org/2008/11/21-pf-minutes.html
14:05:09 [Joshue]
zakim, +2 is Joshue
14:05:09 [Zakim]
+Joshue; got it
14:05:16 [oedipus]
zakim, who is here?
14:05:16 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Janina, Al, Gregory_Rosmaita, Joshue
14:05:17 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, Al, janina, Joshue, oedipus, MichaelC, aaronlev, anne, JRG, trackbot
14:06:09 [oedipus]
scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita
14:06:18 [oedipus]
regrets+ Steve_Faulkner
14:06:28 [oedipus]
ScribeNick: oedipus
14:06:44 [oedipus]
rrsagent, set logs world-visible
14:07:05 [oedipus]
chair: Al, Janina
14:07:26 [oedipus]
JOC: good time for Steve, just has conflict today
14:07:32 [oedipus]
JOC: good time for me
14:07:40 [oedipus]
GJR: good time for gez, not for laura
14:07:51 [oedipus]
rrsagent, make minutes
14:07:51 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/05-pf-minutes.html oedipus
14:08:14 [Stevef]
Stevef has joined #pf
14:08:36 [Al]
agenda+ smart headers update
14:08:45 [Al]
agenda+ summary issue status
14:08:58 [Al]
agenda+ dialog and dialogue and all that
14:09:16 [Al]
agenda+ search for regular time schedule for HTML issues caucus
14:09:24 [Al]
agenda?
14:09:38 [oedipus]
TOPIC: Agenda Shaping
14:10:16 [oedipus]
AG: 4 items form "agenda" for today - smart headers update, summary issue status, dialog versus dialogue, search for regular time schedule for HTML Caucus
14:11:43 [oedipus]
AG: any additions?
14:13:06 [oedipus]
AG: review dialog versus dialogue - test for is this interesting but not PF charter material
14:14:15 [Al]
dialog about dialog and dialogue: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2008Dec/0014.html
14:16:01 [oedipus]
http://esw.w3.org/topic/PF/XTech/HTML5/Dialogue
14:17:32 [Al]
q+ janina
14:17:33 [Joshue]
+q
14:17:37 [Al]
q+
14:19:06 [oedipus]
GJR: explains verbosely
14:19:06 [Al]
q?
14:19:11 [Al]
ack ja
14:20:57 [oedipus]
JS: the last thing al said, resonates for me - no accessibility spin here, necessarily; see both opportunity and danger -- extent they want to debate and work on this; problem probably doens't have clean sollution; natural language is ambigious; gives example of lexicographers
14:21:29 [oedipus]
JS: look out for: however spelled, machines don't break down; don't know if anyone going to succede getting a clear-cut clean solution
14:22:08 [oedipus]
GJR: there is the conflict between the aria-dialog and DIALOG the element and it was persons outside of the accessibility sphere who brought that up as a point of confustion and potential harm
14:22:23 [oedipus]
JS: accessibility reason to push for spelling change
14:22:26 [Al]
Zakim, code?
14:22:26 [Zakim]
the conference code is 26634 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Al
14:23:06 [oedipus]
GJR: what i picked up on was hixie's willingness to change the element name in part because there may be a need for a DIALOG or DIALOGBOX element in HTML5
14:24:01 [oedipus]
GJR: 2 things that hixie stated: one was that dialog may be needed as an element name and b) that dialog was the most appropriate name for the the element in HTML5
14:24:03 [Zakim]
+??P6
14:24:07 [oedipus]
q?
14:24:23 [oedipus]
zakim, ??P6 is Steven_Faulkner
14:24:23 [Zakim]
+Steven_Faulkner; got it
14:25:05 [Joshue]
GJR: I decided to try to come down on the side of common sense. Hixie was open to changing the element name, he states that this is a case of disambiguation.
14:25:26 [Joshue]
Janina: Two closely spelt elements is a recipe for trouble.
14:25:35 [oedipus]
JS: summarize concern: 2 different kinds of element markup may be recipie for problems; especially for hand coders
14:25:41 [oedipus]
JOC: that concern makes sens
14:25:43 [Al]
ack jo
14:25:45 [oedipus]
s/sens/sense
14:26:31 [oedipus]
JOC: valid point JS makes; has common sense authoring situation; disambiguate CS use of dialog and natural language use of dialogue is good; semantics of HTML probably over-ride semantics of ARIA
14:26:36 [oedipus]
AG: not necessarily true
14:27:05 [oedipus]
AG: default would be explicit aria markup is stronger
14:27:13 [oedipus]
JOC: does hixie know that?
14:28:08 [oedipus]
AG: HTML5 could still say a datepicker widget has a strong purpose, but not amenable to casting a different role; can set aside constructs that are impervious to ARIA because script can go on everything; overriding rules have to be respected first by browsers, then by authoring tools
14:28:50 [oedipus]
AG: post on XTech announcing a draft that RichS and Aaron commented upon; dovetailing; default is ARIA markup rules unless specific provisions in host language for overriding
14:29:28 [oedipus]
JOC: use cases - higher level abstraction; think disambiguation would be useful;
14:29:29 [oedipus]
q?
14:29:32 [Al]
ack a
14:29:33 [oedipus]
ack Al
14:30:13 [oedipus]
AG: leading PF connection here is in ARIA caucus - this will confuse authors; going to slow acceptance by HTML5 WG by integration; what is our plan
14:30:34 [oedipus]
AG: suppose text-to-speech pronounces them both the same
14:31:35 [Joshue]
GJR: To make this clear would be the cite element vs the cite attribute.
14:31:40 [oedipus]
AG: no technical concept; matter of perception by humans dealing with spec and definition; same symbol used in 2 diff places as role value and element value; parser building DOM has no problem - CITE element versus @cite attribute
14:32:20 [Joshue]
GJR: There is a Drama Markup language in DAISY
14:32:33 [oedipus]
AG: on other hand, a) don't know how much GJR been through drama markup in DAISY; in term of stage directions, that level of meta-conversation would look for precedence and structure in DAISY drama markup
14:33:18 [oedipus]
AG: 2 homonyms recipie for confusion; logically makes more sense to leave dialog/dialogue alone and recast aria-dialog as aria-dialogbox
14:33:47 [oedipus]
GJR: i understand and support that because then if HTML5 did introduce a dialogbox element, it would be in line with the ARIA concept of dialog box
14:34:06 [Joshue]
+q
14:34:16 [oedipus]
JS: makes more sense - a lot of those using tech non-native english speakers
14:34:51 [oedipus]
JOC: is a need to disambiguate dialog from CS and natural language sense
14:35:30 [oedipus]
AG: dialog not an aria- attribute - is a value of the role attribute - role="dialog" resisted putting aria- on beginning of role values
14:35:38 [oedipus]
JOC: that could be confusing as well
14:36:04 [oedipus]
AG: spirit of shared invention; dialogbox element in HTML5 would preclude need to use aria's dialogbox in markup
14:36:34 [Joshue]
GJR: Should I take and action to propose that dialog be changed to dialogbox?
14:36:56 [oedipus]
ACTION: raise dialogbox as substitue for dialog as an ARIA role on pf list
14:36:56 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - raise
14:37:19 [oedipus]
rrsagent, make minutes
14:37:19 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/05-pf-minutes.html oedipus
14:37:54 [oedipus]
GJR: ironic thing i thought i could cut to the quick with proposed solution, but i was wrong
14:37:58 [Stevef]
may be of interest RIA User Input Widget role tests - Firefox 3 + Assistive Technology http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/aria-tests/user-input-widgets.html
14:38:01 [Joshue]
GJR: I thought I could resolve this quickly, didn't think it would take this much discussion
14:38:17 [oedipus]
AG: poll on old business
14:38:22 [oedipus]
JOC: @summary
14:38:25 [oedipus]
AG: and @headers
14:38:28 [oedipus]
AG: and meeting times
14:38:44 [oedipus]
TOPIC: @headers
14:39:42 [Joshue]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Nov/0483.html
14:39:46 [oedipus]
JOC: on HTML call yesterday, MikeSmith keen to get more feedback; don't know what more can provide - sent a post to public-html
14:40:26 [oedipus]
JOC: i've been saying this is it from our perspective, need movement/comment from HTML5 side
14:41:17 [oedipus]
JOC: HTML5 chairs keep asking for more evidence on @headers; don't know what else to say other than what we've already given them
14:41:56 [oedipus]
JOC: BenM's work not what we are concerned with at this time; not comparison between algorithms, want functionality discussion
14:42:01 [oedipus]
q?
14:42:04 [oedipus]
ack jo
14:42:08 [Joshue]
-q
14:42:30 [oedipus]
SF: no further comment on @headers -- clear where it stands
14:42:35 [Joshue]
+1 to Steve
14:43:39 [oedipus]
AG: feedback: on one hand, agreed we wanted to improve things with algorithms so don't need to rely on explicit bindings; want to work long-term on markup for author and algorithm for browser
14:45:25 [oedipus]
AG: from our perspective, not too soon to get this through HTML WG -- binding poll to say, "put headers back because don't have algorithms deployed and fully developed" - would remove bone of contention between HTML profile we will test ARIA test suite against (will include @headers and @summary); agreed to disagree and rejoin debate later when can test algorithm to ascertain when one still needs to provide explicit bindings
14:47:02 [oedipus]
AG: can then look at concrete examples of how algorithm fails; will still need explicit bindings, but much less so; hard to deal with hypotheticals; concentrate on the concrete - should we push HTML WG to run a binding poll that editor put @headers back in form that can get explicit markup that works and continue to work on algorithms and consider saying "need for headers will be obviated if algorithm works"
14:47:09 [oedipus]
JOC: that is a very big IF
14:47:56 [oedipus]
AG: understand, just being practical politically; @headers forever going to engender disagreement; @headers needed now less explosive; in terms of practice, need headers in HTML5
14:48:56 [oedipus]
JOC: might be worth to speak with DanC -- has aske me explicitly "what do you think is best solution" - perhaps good idea for AG to talk to DanC about this; talked about scope/header support; would be good to get DanC on board
14:49:07 [oedipus]
AG: been wondering if should ask Ben to join call
14:49:38 [oedipus]
JOC: not much use - challange to comment on real-world usage of algorithms
14:50:03 [oedipus]
AG: the ball of tumbleweed contains both @headers and an improved algorithm
14:50:14 [oedipus]
JOC: working on the algorithm path is useful
14:50:17 [oedipus]
AG: agree
14:50:32 [oedipus]
AG: perfect opportunity if have manpower to do work on this
14:50:52 [oedipus]
TEN MINUTE WARNING
14:52:17 [oedipus]
AG: MikeS continues to return to JOC because HTML WG decision maker, but he wants our input
14:52:48 [oedipus]
JOC: can't answer Mike anymore about progress on headers, need some action on behalf of HTML WG; i have nothing more to add; ball firmly in their court
14:53:21 [oedipus]
SF: Mike has longstanding action to get hixie to re-review issue again
14:54:34 [oedipus]
AG: we think stage is ready for HTML WG to put @headers back into draft; have to stress not opositional; is current @headers in draft too limited to make necessary markup possible?
14:54:42 [oedipus]
JOC: put together a lot of solutions
14:55:13 [oedipus]
SF: debated a couple of months ago in HTML WG -- ChrisW said very simple change, this is only 1 line, will happen, but went dead
14:55:51 [oedipus]
AG: didn't go dead, got diverted -- charter issues demanded more study; can tell MikeS that we are ready to do poll
14:56:26 [oedipus]
JS: i would remind action item was hixie to come back; waiting upon hixie; ready to go beyond that, but need progress report from editor and chairs
14:56:47 [oedipus]
JOC: will ask for something from their side at next week
14:57:20 [oedipus]
JS: hixie did offer to "ramp it up" - could gentlely point out can't go futher - process we agreed on, up priority now, all that needs to be said is said
14:58:08 [Joshue]
@anne to some degree what we are waiting for is outside Bens research
14:58:51 [Joshue]
@anne Bens research is useful but it is algorithm comparison and I think we need a decision on explicit semantics
14:58:57 [anne]
I thought the main issue was about table headers having table headers of their own?
14:59:07 [Joshue]
@anne, thats one part of it
14:59:21 [Joshue]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Nov/0483.html
14:59:24 [oedipus]
SF: does Ben's research have that much of an effect on @headers reinstated as required?
14:59:42 [oedipus]
TWO MINUTE WARNING
15:01:06 [anne]
Joshue, yeah, Ben did research into that as well as into algorithms
15:01:16 [Joshue]
@anne, ok
15:01:26 [oedipus]
AG: if Ben's research indicated over the long haul can remove headers or don't need what we are asking for now; basic argument: assistive tech in place and runs off headers; continuity "thing" - paving cowpaths on one hand and solving real problems; removing headers solved perceived not real problem; need to put @headers back in until running code shows they are no longer needed; we need it now
15:01:36 [oedipus]
AG: need people to read Ben's research report
15:01:39 [anne]
based on what Hixie last said he'd work on this relatively soonish
15:01:58 [Joshue]
@anne, good stuff
15:02:25 [oedipus]
JOC: want to get algorithm implemented in major browsers, but then have to get AT vendors to use new algorithm instead of their own
15:02:37 [Joshue]
@anne, aside from the algorithm one elegant solution (which is well supported by current AT) is headers/id combinations. For more see http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueTableHeaders#head-29de33199bf5222d55c4a52b8970245d24bd286f
15:02:38 [oedipus]
AG: poll of devs spotty but general support
15:03:15 [Joshue]
@anne, use of @scope has advantage for authors but is very poorly supported (but that could change is UA support improved)
15:03:25 [oedipus]
AG: don't chain if use headers, list them all; what i mean, browsers said "yes, should pick up algorith and hand over to AT" -- AT devs said, under such a scenario, would implement that
15:03:50 [Joshue]
zakim, mute me
15:03:50 [Zakim]
Joshue should now be muted
15:03:54 [oedipus]
AG: @scope left to AT to do whole job in past; now proper division of work - browser provides more friendly info to AT
15:04:10 [anne]
Joshue, that doesn't say that a header having headers associated with it is also acceptable
15:04:26 [oedipus]
AG: proposition that get @headers reinstated and repaired is a simple change and brings HTML5 back in line with accessible process
15:04:26 [anne]
Joshue, which is what I got out of the PFWG/HTMLWG meetings in Mandelieu
15:05:00 [anne]
e.g. it starts with "Reinstate headers/id AND their functionality into the spec by specifically stating that headers are allowed to reference a td." though that's not how many people felt afaict
15:05:04 [Joshue]
@anne, ok. some kind of staggered combination of improved algorithms and explicit semantics should fly I guess
15:05:14 [oedipus]
AG: in reply to josh on public-html, can deprecate if have running code that is effective, but don't remove from spec until meets WCAG standard for accessibly supported -- most browsers and ATs supporting it; that's the roadmap for progress we've outlined
15:05:31 [Joshue]
@anne, headers for header is needed
15:05:42 [oedipus]
AG: ready for HTML WG to work on this; fix @headers now and continue to work on algorithm; doesn't need a poll
15:06:12 [oedipus]
SF: once WCAG2 is a REC, then the use of test of accessibility supported will be useful tool to benchmark various a11y issues in HTML5
15:06:21 [oedipus]
SF: thanks, al -- that makes things clearer
15:06:31 [Joshue]
@anne, the headers/id idea is attractive because of good existing support. It may not be perfect..
15:06:34 [oedipus]
AG: thank josh for doing his action item and work in HTML WG
15:06:35 [Joshue]
thanks al
15:06:50 [anne]
Joshue, yeah, the point is that header for header is not the same
15:06:52 [Zakim]
-Al
15:06:54 [oedipus]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:06:54 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/05-pf-minutes.html oedipus
15:07:10 [anne]
Joshue, and that therefore the wiki page summary might not be accurate of what the acceptable solutions actually are
15:07:11 [Joshue]
@anne, ok
15:07:33 [Joshue]
@anne, thanks for the heads up, if there is confusion we should try and clear that up?
15:07:38 [oedipus]
JS: probably need to discuss time of caucus calls on-list; would 1500 UTC be better? 1500 UTC collides with HTC call
15:07:52 [Joshue]
@anne, the wiki does need to be tidied
15:08:00 [Joshue]
zakim, unmute me
15:08:00 [Zakim]
Joshue should no longer be muted
15:08:04 [oedipus]
JS: same time next week (1400 utc)
15:08:15 [oedipus]
JOC: thanks for a very good meeting
15:08:25 [anne]
Joshue, yeah, that'd be nice
15:08:47 [oedipus]
JOC: maybe should revisit contents of wiki -- ensure reflects what we have agreed upon
15:08:54 [aaronlev]
I provided feedback on @headers on whatwg mailing list, and it hasn't really been addressed yet
15:09:13 [oedipus]
@aaronlev - did you cross-post to a w3c list?
15:10:01 [Joshue]
bye bye
15:10:07 [aaronlev]
no, sorry
15:10:10 [aaronlev]
i'll send
15:10:14 [Zakim]
-Steven_Faulkner
15:10:18 [Zakim]
-Gregory_Rosmaita
15:10:18 [Zakim]
-Joshue
15:10:55 [oedipus]
ACTION: review HTML wiki on @headers issue (http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueTableHeaders)
15:10:55 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - review
15:11:02 [oedipus]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:11:02 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/05-pf-minutes.html oedipus
15:11:16 [oedipus]
zakim, please part
15:11:16 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were Janina, Al, Gregory_Rosmaita, Joshue, Steven_Faulkner
15:11:16 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #pf
15:11:59 [richardschwerdtfe]
richardschwerdtfe has joined #pf
15:12:36 [richardschwerdtfe]
richardschwerdtfe has joined #pf
15:13:37 [oedipus]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:13:37 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/05-pf-minutes.html oedipus
15:14:06 [oedipus]
regrets- Steve_Faulkner
15:14:08 [oedipus]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:14:08 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/05-pf-minutes.html oedipus
15:15:20 [oedipus]
rrsagent, please part
15:15:20 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/05-pf-actions.rdf :
15:15:20 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: raise dialogbox as substitue for dialog as an ARIA role on pf list [1]
15:15:20 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/05-pf-irc#T14-36-56
15:15:20 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: review HTML wiki on @headers issue (http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueTableHeaders) [2]
15:15:20 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/05-pf-irc#T15-10-55