PFWG telecon -- 18 May 2011

<janina> agenda: this

<SallyC> Scribe: SallyC

+ two minutes

JS: Skip action items as we are small

in attendance

JS: And skip new last calls. We can be confident there is nothing there
... Publication of several HTML 5 documents for next week
... Longdesc and if we think html 5 is ready for last call and the poll are related to that

+ HTML 5 Longdesc Reconsideration http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011May/0419.html

<janina> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011May/0419.html

JS: to reconsider reinstating longdesc
... the text subteam met and unanimously approved this request in a resolution. Also approved a resolution should last call be published without longdesc in the spec then there would be support for a formal complaint to the director to hold
... We do have a consensus document in the taskforce which is quite old.
... It does not mention anything about where the sub teams fit as we hadn't realised that is where most of the work would get done in subteams
... Procedural things happen in the task force
... Consensus procedures reflect expectations on where we started not where we are now. However it raises the prospect of questioning this statement.

<richardschwerdtfe> can you hear me?

JS: We will put this to a vote in the taskforce vote. Assuming it is approved, either one of the resolutions then there would be a survey for three working days for people to comment on the topic

<richardschwerdtfe> k

<richardschwerdtfe> will call back in

JS: Any questions?

RS: They want us to vote again?

JS: Yes! On call and the survey

RS: I haven't looked at the overall voting on going to last call, but to me parts are incomplete.

JS: Yes this is to discuss

CS: will save my comments on content for tomorrow

+ HTML 5 Last Call WBS http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/html5-last-call-poll/

JS: The question is 8 different documents or so. Are each of them ready or not for last call publication

RS: What does it look like

SC: Last time I looked there were mostly yes or one or two abstein

<janina> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/html5-last-call-poll/

RS: Usually I would expect it to be a real working draft and then move to a last call. I think there are things missing

JS: There is the poll and the next agendum is if we believe it should be published

+ Does PF Approve HTML 5 Last Call? http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html#coordination

<janina> HTML Charter Dependencies at:

<janina> http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html#coordination

This lists the working groups that HTML is required to interact with and they should have advised us formally if they were going to do this publication

JS: We do have a say in whether we think this is ready as PF and as individuals if we are in the taskforce
... There is a call scheduled with Tim tomorrow to discuss the formal objection which has come up regarding longdesc. Sam posted how he saw some of the issues.
... He thought management needed to make a decision on how to proceed
... It wasn't so much that any particular feature was or wasn't in the spec, but what the document is, will it be called feature complete.
... to us it is clear that not everything is in the spec.
... Great chunk that is missing is the older settled technology and possibly not controversial any longer.
... It is important to the reputation of the organisation and of accessibility and if it is not feature complete then say so. Could we flag things that are missing?
... Could annotate what is missing and link to discussion and show it as an in process specification. But they want more feedback and on accessibility

<richardschwerdtfe> +1

<richardschwerdtfe> sorry Q+

RS: Canvas - we have a decision and the chairs made a decision but there were a couple of things that were left out. They related to 508. We were asked to raise these but nothing happened
... We are missing is ability to provide bounds of an object so you can map it to an a11y API
... The technical solution to this is going to take a little longer.
... I put this to the list and I provided use cases
... When they say this is a 'last call document' ie all major features are there. I don't think it is.
... I think we need to say we need a thorough review of the document
... Does anyone disagree?

CS: It is sometimes a good idea to go to last call with open issues - wcag did.
... We can state up front what some of the issues are

RS: I need to make sure that is the purpose of this release
... It is not clear in the survey

CS: ... it would not be

RS: If they say we have issues and log issues that are remaining

JS: Test a consensus
... OK to publish even if they call it 'last call' as long as they say it is not feature complete for accessibility and we would want some things specifically listed

ASW: They seem to have a lot of bugs open
... It would seem odd to go to last call with so many bugs open

JS: There is canvas, there is media
... There is still work to do
... What about other areas?
... Are ARIA mappings done

RS: not concrete
... in longdesc proposal we have added new requirements.
... They are good requirements, for example user agent being able to identify longdesc areas.
... We can agree in general that we are not feature complete.
... I am going to reopen an issue after last call as there are some discussions that have not been had

JS: We put the issue out for 48 hours before we declare a consensus. I think I can put out on the list

ASW: any areas that still have significant issues and disagreement should be flagged by inline editorial notes

JS: I will do this after the call to see if we have consensus by Friday.
... Taskforce meeting will include the two items from the text alternatives meeting
... We have been offered to flag inline and this will get more people looking at it and commenting on it which is valuable

RS: Problem is we probably won't be able to get the inline edits by Friday though

JS: The vote is due on Sunday and they want to publish on tues

<Andi> scribe: Andi

JS: individual ability because of our participation in the HTML WG - should do so and not hold back
... also charter dependency HTML has on PF - get to have a formal opinion
... this formal opinion is what I'll be sending out the 48 hour call for

CS: can we get the spec text ready? don't want to delay them
... if they say yes, we should be ready to provide them

JS: we should have the list tomorrow on the HTML task force meeting
... do we need to schedule another meeting or can we do it via e-mail?

CS: e-mail. Can everyone send their favorite issue to the PF list?
... and include the text of the editorial note

RS: no section for canvas yet

CS: probably should go at the top of the canvas section

JS: canvas note could include pointer to issue 131

CS: never seen links in editorial notes - seems okay - but might not be allowed

RS: like for Cynthia and Steve to go through section 3.2.6 to make sure it's all okay
... one example - still don't have text on how to process ARIA attributes

JS: it's our fault but it still should be there
... make sure that what we think is in the spec is actually there

<richardschwerdtfe> thanks

- DRAFT -

PFWG telecon

18 May 2011

Attendees

Contents

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output