13:59:57 RRSAgent has joined #pf 13:59:57 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/12/05-pf-irc 13:59:59 zakim, call janina 13:59:59 sorry, janina, I don't know what conference this is 14:00:05 hi GJR and y'all 14:00:26 Zakim, what conference is this? 14:00:26 no conference has been selected, Al 14:00:38 Zakim, room for 7? 14:00:39 ok, Al; conference Team_(pf)14:00Z scheduled with code 26634 (CONF4) for 60 minutes until 1500Z 14:00:42 meeting: HTML5 Caucus 14:00:50 Zakim, code? 14:00:50 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 zakim, call janina 14:01:01 ok, janina; the call is being made 14:01:02 Team_(pf)14:00Z has now started 14:01:03 +Janina 14:01:41 regrets: Gez_Lemon, Laura_Carlson 14:01:42 -Janina 14:01:43 Team_(pf)14:00Z has ended 14:01:43 Attendees were Janina 14:02:07 rrsagent, make minutes 14:02:07 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/05-pf-minutes.html oedipus 14:02:14 zakim, call janina 14:02:14 ok, janina; the call is being made 14:02:15 Team_(pf)14:00Z has now started 14:02:16 +Janina 14:02:45 rrsagent, pointer? 14:02:45 See http://www.w3.org/2008/12/05-pf-irc#T14-02-45 14:03:00 +??P3 14:03:29 Zakim, who is here? 14:03:29 On the phone I see Janina, Al 14:03:30 On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, Al, janina, Joshue, oedipus, MichaelC, aaronlev, anne, JRG, trackbot 14:03:42 +Gregory_Rosmaita 14:04:59 + +2 14:05:05 previous: http://www.w3.org/2008/11/21-pf-minutes.html 14:05:09 zakim, +2 is Joshue 14:05:09 +Joshue; got it 14:05:16 zakim, who is here? 14:05:16 On the phone I see Janina, Al, Gregory_Rosmaita, Joshue 14:05:17 On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, Al, janina, Joshue, oedipus, MichaelC, aaronlev, anne, JRG, trackbot 14:06:09 scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita 14:06:18 regrets+ Steve_Faulkner 14:06:28 ScribeNick: oedipus 14:06:44 rrsagent, set logs world-visible 14:07:05 chair: Al, Janina 14:07:26 JOC: good time for Steve, just has conflict today 14:07:32 JOC: good time for me 14:07:40 GJR: good time for gez, not for laura 14:07:51 rrsagent, make minutes 14:07:51 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/05-pf-minutes.html oedipus 14:08:14 Stevef has joined #pf 14:08:36 agenda+ smart headers update 14:08:45 agenda+ summary issue status 14:08:58 agenda+ dialog and dialogue and all that 14:09:16 agenda+ search for regular time schedule for HTML issues caucus 14:09:24 agenda? 14:09:38 TOPIC: Agenda Shaping 14:10:16 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 AG: any additions? 14:13:06 AG: review dialog versus dialogue - test for is this interesting but not PF charter material 14:14:15 dialog about dialog and dialogue: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2008Dec/0014.html 14:16:01 http://esw.w3.org/topic/PF/XTech/HTML5/Dialogue 14:17:32 q+ janina 14:17:33 +q 14:17:37 q+ 14:19:06 GJR: explains verbosely 14:19:06 q? 14:19:11 ack ja 14:20:57 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 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 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 JS: accessibility reason to push for spelling change 14:22:26 Zakim, code? 14:22:26 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 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 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 +??P6 14:24:07 q? 14:24:23 zakim, ??P6 is Steven_Faulkner 14:24:23 +Steven_Faulkner; got it 14:25:05 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 Janina: Two closely spelt elements is a recipe for trouble. 14:25:35 JS: summarize concern: 2 different kinds of element markup may be recipie for problems; especially for hand coders 14:25:41 JOC: that concern makes sens 14:25:43 ack jo 14:25:45 s/sens/sense 14:26:31 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 AG: not necessarily true 14:27:05 AG: default would be explicit aria markup is stronger 14:27:13 JOC: does hixie know that? 14:28:08 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 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 JOC: use cases - higher level abstraction; think disambiguation would be useful; 14:29:29 q? 14:29:32 ack a 14:29:33 ack Al 14:30:13 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 AG: suppose text-to-speech pronounces them both the same 14:31:35 GJR: To make this clear would be the cite element vs the cite attribute. 14:31:40 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 GJR: There is a Drama Markup language in DAISY 14:32:33 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 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 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 +q 14:34:16 JS: makes more sense - a lot of those using tech non-native english speakers 14:34:51 JOC: is a need to disambiguate dialog from CS and natural language sense 14:35:30 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 JOC: that could be confusing as well 14:36:04 AG: spirit of shared invention; dialogbox element in HTML5 would preclude need to use aria's dialogbox in markup 14:36:34 GJR: Should I take and action to propose that dialog be changed to dialogbox? 14:36:56 ACTION: raise dialogbox as substitue for dialog as an ARIA role on pf list 14:36:56 Sorry, couldn't find user - raise 14:37:19 rrsagent, make minutes 14:37:19 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/05-pf-minutes.html oedipus 14:37:54 GJR: ironic thing i thought i could cut to the quick with proposed solution, but i was wrong 14:37:58 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 GJR: I thought I could resolve this quickly, didn't think it would take this much discussion 14:38:17 AG: poll on old business 14:38:22 JOC: @summary 14:38:25 AG: and @headers 14:38:28 AG: and meeting times 14:38:44 TOPIC: @headers 14:39:42 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Nov/0483.html 14:39:46 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 JOC: i've been saying this is it from our perspective, need movement/comment from HTML5 side 14:41:17 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 JOC: BenM's work not what we are concerned with at this time; not comparison between algorithms, want functionality discussion 14:42:01 q? 14:42:04 ack jo 14:42:08 -q 14:42:30 SF: no further comment on @headers -- clear where it stands 14:42:35 +1 to Steve 14:43:39 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 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 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 JOC: that is a very big IF 14:47:56 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 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 AG: been wondering if should ask Ben to join call 14:49:38 JOC: not much use - challange to comment on real-world usage of algorithms 14:50:03 AG: the ball of tumbleweed contains both @headers and an improved algorithm 14:50:14 JOC: working on the algorithm path is useful 14:50:17 AG: agree 14:50:32 AG: perfect opportunity if have manpower to do work on this 14:50:52 TEN MINUTE WARNING 14:52:17 AG: MikeS continues to return to JOC because HTML WG decision maker, but he wants our input 14:52:48 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 SF: Mike has longstanding action to get hixie to re-review issue again 14:54:34 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 JOC: put together a lot of solutions 14:55:13 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 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 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 JOC: will ask for something from their side at next week 14:57:20 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 @anne to some degree what we are waiting for is outside Bens research 14:58:51 @anne Bens research is useful but it is algorithm comparison and I think we need a decision on explicit semantics 14:58:57 I thought the main issue was about table headers having table headers of their own? 14:59:07 @anne, thats one part of it 14:59:21 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Nov/0483.html 14:59:24 SF: does Ben's research have that much of an effect on @headers reinstated as required? 14:59:42 TWO MINUTE WARNING 15:01:06 Joshue, yeah, Ben did research into that as well as into algorithms 15:01:16 @anne, ok 15:01:26 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 AG: need people to read Ben's research report 15:01:39 based on what Hixie last said he'd work on this relatively soonish 15:01:58 @anne, good stuff 15:02:25 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 @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 AG: poll of devs spotty but general support 15:03:15 @anne, use of @scope has advantage for authors but is very poorly supported (but that could change is UA support improved) 15:03:25 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 zakim, mute me 15:03:50 Joshue should now be muted 15:03:54 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 Joshue, that doesn't say that a header having headers associated with it is also acceptable 15:04:26 AG: proposition that get @headers reinstated and repaired is a simple change and brings HTML5 back in line with accessible process 15:04:26 Joshue, which is what I got out of the PFWG/HTMLWG meetings in Mandelieu 15:05:00 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 @anne, ok. some kind of staggered combination of improved algorithms and explicit semantics should fly I guess 15:05:14 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 @anne, headers for header is needed 15:05:42 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 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 SF: thanks, al -- that makes things clearer 15:06:31 @anne, the headers/id idea is attractive because of good existing support. It may not be perfect.. 15:06:34 AG: thank josh for doing his action item and work in HTML WG 15:06:35 thanks al 15:06:50 Joshue, yeah, the point is that header for header is not the same 15:06:52 -Al 15:06:54 rrsagent, make minutes 15:06:54 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/05-pf-minutes.html oedipus 15:07:10 Joshue, and that therefore the wiki page summary might not be accurate of what the acceptable solutions actually are 15:07:11 @anne, ok 15:07:33 @anne, thanks for the heads up, if there is confusion we should try and clear that up? 15:07:38 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 @anne, the wiki does need to be tidied 15:08:00 zakim, unmute me 15:08:00 Joshue should no longer be muted 15:08:04 JS: same time next week (1400 utc) 15:08:15 JOC: thanks for a very good meeting 15:08:25 Joshue, yeah, that'd be nice 15:08:47 JOC: maybe should revisit contents of wiki -- ensure reflects what we have agreed upon 15:08:54 I provided feedback on @headers on whatwg mailing list, and it hasn't really been addressed yet 15:09:13 @aaronlev - did you cross-post to a w3c list? 15:10:01 bye bye 15:10:07 no, sorry 15:10:10 i'll send 15:10:14 -Steven_Faulkner 15:10:18 -Gregory_Rosmaita 15:10:18 -Joshue 15:10:55 ACTION: review HTML wiki on @headers issue (http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueTableHeaders) 15:10:55 Sorry, couldn't find user - review 15:11:02 rrsagent, make minutes 15:11:02 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/05-pf-minutes.html oedipus 15:11:16 zakim, please part 15:11:16 leaving. As of this point the attendees were Janina, Al, Gregory_Rosmaita, Joshue, Steven_Faulkner 15:11:16 Zakim has left #pf 15:11:59 richardschwerdtfe has joined #pf 15:12:36 richardschwerdtfe has joined #pf 15:13:37 rrsagent, make minutes 15:13:37 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/05-pf-minutes.html oedipus 15:14:06 regrets- Steve_Faulkner 15:14:08 rrsagent, make minutes 15:15:20 rrsagent, please part 15:15:20 I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/05-pf-actions.rdf : 15:15:20 ACTION: raise dialogbox as substitue for dialog as an ARIA role on pf list [1] 15:15:20 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/05-pf-irc#T14-36-56 15:15:20 ACTION: review HTML wiki on @headers issue (http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueTableHeaders) [2] 15:15:20 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/05-pf-irc#T15-10-55