See also: IRC log
<Stevef> am on client call so unable to attend the meet
<Stevef> regrets
<janina> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0417.html ,
<janina> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0421.html ,
<janina> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#change-proposal, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011May/0000.html
<janina> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/notitle
<janina> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc
<janina> consensus if ready
<janina> unresolved/unrestored accessibility features
<Leonie_Watson> Scribe: Leonie_Watson
JS: As we work to get more appropriate support for accessibility, we need to point at what in our proposals is new evidence, and provide as much of a spec ready text as we can.
JS: This has happened. More news to follow.
<JF> ask ste
SF: Lief has also submitted a change proposal.
JS: Steve, have you locked the wiki pag yet?
SF: No, will do that now.
JS: The question is whether this proposal is ready to be submitted with the backing of the TF.
JF: Are you asking that of the people on this call?
<JF> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc
<gfreed> +1
<Stevef> +1
<JF> +1
<janina> +1
+1
<gfreed> =1
<gfreed> =1
<gfreed> =1
<judy> +1
<gfreed> stuffing the ballot box.
<richardschwerdtfe> +1
<LynnH> +1
<JF> JF will record Joshue O'Connor +1
<LynnH> +1 for Marco Ranon
<JF> +1 for Laura Carlson
JS: It looks unanimous for the people on the call/IRC.
JB: I need to keep focused on a meeting here, but wanted to drop in briefly.
JS: We were discussing the role of sub groups in making recommendations on behalf of the TF.
JB: Unless there is an adjustement to either the
timeline, the process, or the definition of last call, that even with the
consensus position nothing will be happening before the last call draft.
... Would anyone be willing to make a formal objection if the situation
requires it?
<janina> I was suggesting we can also look at wg support for formal requests
JB: Who might support a formal objection on longdesc not being restored in the last call working draft if it goes forward?
<LynnH> +1
JS: So of those who agreed with the change proposal (above), who would be supportive of a formal objection?
<gfreed> +1
RS: Which longdesc are you referring to? The one in the change proposal or the one in HTML4?
JB: The one in the change proposal (Laura's change proposal).
<janina> The meeting is now testing whether there is present consensus to support a formal objection escalation should it appear that HTML last call is to be published without the longdesc as in our supported proposal
<janina> +1
<JF> +1
+1
JOC: Well put, exactly.
<judy> +1
<JF> Joshue O'Connor = +1
<LHSilli> +1
<gfreed> +1
RS: I support this proposal, but if it doesn't go
through I think we can approach it with ARIA.
... Abstention.
<JF> BTW, Paul Cotton's note: Last Call decision poll: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011May/0163.html
JB: Am I assuming it's ok to represent this position on a formal objection on behalf of the TF?
RS: I would say you have the majority, so yes.
JB: I don't think the WG has an expidited process, although the W3C does.
*General discussion about the wording of the resolutions.
<JF> me/ Resolution: The Task Force supports a Formal Objection escalation should it appear that HTML last call is to be published without the longdesc as in our supported proposal
<Stevef> +1
+1
<gfreed> +1
<janina> +1
<LynnH> +1
<JF> Resolution: The Task Force supports the Issue 30 Change Proposal at: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc
<judy> +1
<JF> RESOLUTION: The Task Force supports the Issue 30 Change Proposal at: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc
<JF> scribe: JF
RESOLUTION: The Task Force supports the Issue 30 Change Proposal at: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc
<Leonie_Watson> RESOLUTION: The Task Force supports the Issue 30 Change Proposal at:
<Leonie_Watson> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc
<Leonie_Watson> JB: No-one knows what will happen with the last call, so even without accessibility the timeline could drift. We should try to keep things moving.
RESOLUTION: The Task Force supports a Formal Objection escalation should it appear that HTML last call is to be published without the longdesc as in our supported proposal
<Leonie_Watson> JS: Anything else from the technological or process point of view on this?
<Stevef> me/ got ot go see you all later
<Leonie_Watson> JF: I haven't been able to get anything into the wiki, but it's on my agenda this week.
<Leonie_Watson> JS: Steve isn't here, so we can't do much here.
<Leonie_Watson> JS: The oll announced this morning about taking the documents to llast call.
Last Call decision poll: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011May/0163.html
<Leonie_Watson> JS: We should look at the survey they're running and check if there are any responses from the group.
<Leonie_Watson> JS: I'm willig to cut the specs some slack for new technologies, but that the things we have agreed on should be repressented properly.
<Leonie_Watson> JS: The things that have been there since HTML4 and that have not been resolved now are really core.
<Leonie_Watson> RS: If the situation with longdesc likely to cause a problem then?
<Leonie_Watson> JF: They've agreed to open the issue.
<Leonie_Watson> RS: Regarding canvas, they put my changes in but there are editorial things I still need to look at.
<Leonie_Watson> JS: When it comes to the stuff that's new in HTML5 (and there's a lot that's new), the world will cut some slack. The angst has come from those areas that aren't new.
<Leonie_Watson> RS: What we have for longdesc in our change proposal has much more value than longdesc in HTML4.
<Leonie_Watson> RS: Why some things are singled out over others is uncertain, but there you go!
JF picks up scribing
scribeL JF
JS: seems we are closing in to the end of the call anyway
are there any other topic concerns? outstanding questions? any other business?
looking for a scribe for next week? volunteers?
Janina volutneers to be nest weeks scribe
JS: thanks all
zaxim, bye
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/uncerain/uncertain/ Found Scribe: Leonie_Watson Inferring ScribeNick: Leonie_Watson Found Scribe: JF Inferring ScribeNick: JF Scribes: Leonie_Watson, JF ScribeNicks: Leonie_Watson, JF WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: JB JF JOC JS Judy LHSilli Leonie_Watson LynnH P22 P25 RS SF Steve_Faulkner Stevef WGBH aabb gfreed is janina judy_ perhaps richardschwerdtfe You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Got date from IRC log name: 16 May 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/05/16-text-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]