15:29:03 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #text
15:29:03 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/09/26-text-irc
15:29:04 <Zakim> On IRC I see janina, Judy
15:29:26 <janina> zakim, who's here?
15:29:26 <Zakim> sorry, janina, I don't know what conference this is
15:29:28 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, janina, Judy
15:30:12 <Judy> zakim, this is WAI_PF(Text)
15:30:12 <Zakim> ok, Judy; that matches WAI_PF(Text)11:30AM
15:30:40 <Judy> meeting: Text Alternatives Sub-Group of HTML5 Accessibility Task Force
15:30:45 <Judy> chair: brewer
15:31:20 <Zakim> +Judy
15:31:33 <Judy> zakim, who's here?
15:31:33 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P1, Judy
15:31:34 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, janina, Judy
15:31:45 <Judy> zakim, P1 is Janina
15:31:45 <Zakim> sorry, Judy, I do not recognize a party named 'P1'
15:31:51 <Judy> zakim, ??P1 is Janina
15:31:51 <Zakim> +Janina; got it
15:32:11 <Judy> agenda?
15:32:18 <Judy> agenda+ longdesc:  status of response to Jonas; issues to respond to in Matt's updated change proposal.
15:32:18 <Judy> agenda+ meta generator:  confirm got forwarded to TF? <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposal/meta_name%3Dgenerator_does_not_make_missing_alt_conforming>
15:32:18 <Judy> agenda+ table summary:  use case or argument gaps? <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ReinstateTableSummary>
15:32:18 <Judy> agenda+ generated content:  update on new discussion sub-group and/or thread? <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13668>
15:32:20 <Judy> agenda+ input into process review?
15:32:22 <Judy> agenda+ other business? 
15:32:24 <Judy> agenda+ confirm next meeting; identify next scribe; adjourn.
15:34:02 <Zakim> +John_Foliot
15:36:43 <Judy> scribe: Janina
15:38:21 <Lynn_Holdsworth> Lynn_Holdsworth has joined #text
15:38:36 <janina> JF: Will be posting response to Jonas shortly
15:38:47 <janina> JB: We need to brainstorm on response to Matt
15:41:51 <JF> JF has joined #text
15:41:56 <JF> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/LongdescZeroEdit
15:43:54 <Judy> Janina: Per previous discussion, I'm suggesting a terse approach to Matt's CP, since most of his points have been responded to previously.
15:44:35 <JF> 2 main assertions from Matt is "Discoverability" problem and his incorrect assertion about 'flattened" aria-describedby
15:47:14 <janina> [discussion on JF's response, Wiki or email?]
15:47:29 <janina> jb: We'll post to Wiki and summarize in email
15:49:49 <cfit> cfit has joined #text
15:51:59 <cfit> cfit has left #text
15:52:05 <cfit> cfit has joined #text
15:53:25 <cfit> Hi judy, its josh via new irc client.
15:53:30 <Zakim> + +44.207.391.aaaa
15:53:55 <cfit> :-)
15:54:09 <cfit> am holding baby
15:54:41 <cfit> you got it!
15:55:23 <cfit> zakim, cfit is Joshue
15:55:23 <Zakim> sorry, cfit, I do not recognize a party named 'cfit'
15:55:38 <JF> 1 other issue to note is Matt's dismissal of eText requirements with "This does not appear to be a valid use case. "
15:55:42 <Judy> judy: so response to Matt's cp would be re-refuting old 'damage' misunderstandings; pointing to jf's response for programmatic determinability; and explaining assumption (of browser's ability to fix) problem in aria-described portion
15:57:26 <Judy> janina: just disagree?
15:58:08 <Judy> judy: think we need to point out where his discussion of use-cases are wrong
15:59:21 <janina> jb: We need to continue to say "wrong" to reasserted erroneous statements
16:00:48 <janina> jb: Pointers to previous refutations can be useful, to point to recycled effort
16:04:42 <JF> Q+
16:06:57 <JF> ack JF
16:07:07 <janina> jb: Key point is that we have put credible refutations on the table
16:07:56 <janina> jb: We now have uncontested, incorrect assertions that need responses before any survey is conducted
16:08:12 <Judy> zakim, who's here?
16:08:12 <Zakim> On the phone I see Janina, Judy, John_Foliot, +44.207.391.aaaa
16:08:13 <Zakim> On IRC I see cfit, JF, Lynn_Holdsworth, RRSAgent, Zakim, janina, Judy
16:13:01 <janina> [discussion on goals, audience, understanding, etc]
16:14:18 <janina> jb: We may not be talking a terse response any longer, even though each particular point might be short
16:15:13 <janina> jb: Janina and John will talk for Janina to create a response to Matt with pointers into the response to Jonas
16:16:16 <janina> jf: Is there value to waiting to coordinate the two?
16:16:29 <janina> jb: No, much more important to get the Jonas reponse out asap
16:18:36 <Judy> zakim, close this item
16:18:36 <Zakim> I do not know what agendum had been taken up, Judy
16:18:41 <Judy> zakim, take up item one
16:18:41 <Zakim> 'one' does not match any agenda item, Judy
16:18:45 <Judy> zakim, take up item 1
16:18:45 <Zakim> agendum 1. "longdesc:  status of response to Jonas; issues to respond to in Matt's updated change proposal." taken up [from Judy]
16:18:55 <Judy> zakim, close item 1
16:18:55 <Zakim> agendum 1, longdesc:  status of response to Jonas; issues to respond to in Matt's updated change proposal., closed
16:18:57 <Zakim> I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:18:58 <Zakim> 2. meta generator:  confirm got forwarded to TF? <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposal/meta_name%3Dgenerator_does_not_make_missing_alt_conforming> [from Judy]
16:19:07 <Judy> zakim, take up next item
16:19:07 <Zakim> agendum 2. "meta generator:  confirm got forwarded to TF? <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposal/meta_name%3Dgenerator_does_not_make_missing_alt_conforming>" taken up [from
16:19:10 <Zakim> ... Judy]
16:19:39 <Judy> action: janina and john coordinate on response to matt using pointers where available
16:21:06 <janina> jb: Anyone recall differently than that we'll take this to TF now?
16:22:23 <Judy> action: janina coordinate with mike s to get meta generator re-open request and change proposal on TF agenda, with pointers enough in advance of meeting
16:22:37 <Judy> zakim, close this item
16:22:37 <Zakim> agendum 2 closed
16:22:38 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:22:39 <Zakim> 3. table summary:  use case or argument gaps? <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ReinstateTableSummary> [from Judy]
16:22:42 <Judy> zakim, take up next item
16:22:42 <Zakim> agendum 3. "table summary:  use case or argument gaps? <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ReinstateTableSummary>" taken up [from Judy]
16:22:59 <cfit> yup
16:23:16 <cfit> I won't have time to develop the use cases
16:23:32 <cfit> If anyone else wants to chime in with some help please do.
16:23:47 <cfit> In terms of framing the CP, I hope it is on the right road.
16:23:54 <janina> jb: We still need use cases plus a review to check that the Chair's questions in their decision have been addressed
16:24:14 <Judy> josh, do you think that you addressed every question that the chairs posed in the flow of their decision?
16:24:28 <cfit> Yes, FWIW I did take special care to ensure many of the requirements were met in terms of re-opening the issue at least.
16:24:33 <cfit> Pretty much
16:24:44 <cfit> It was a lot of work tbh
16:26:12 <janina> There are two docs to consider
16:26:15 <Judy> josh, we are asking perhaps a diff qu than you are answering. 
16:26:22 <janina> 1.) The requirements for a request to reconsider
16:26:29 <cfit> ok
16:26:31 <janina> 2.)the original decision to obsolete table summary
16:27:08 <cfit> FWIW, there is enough contained in my CP to frame other requests
16:27:17 <cfit> As best I could Judy
16:27:37 <cfit> I can't say if it was exhaustive, or even enough but it was the best I could do.
16:28:04 <Judy> ack, & thx, on your responding to #2, but we don't know what you mean by your fwiw comment -- to frame what other requests?
16:28:24 <cfit> if what i did isnt enough
16:28:37 <cfit> it could be used as a template
16:28:42 <cfit> just an idea
16:29:33 <cfit> i think it has enough eg aria vs summary etc, more samples in the wild etc
16:30:14 <cfit> i mean aria not as a sufficent functional replacement for summary etc
16:31:44 <janina> Lynn: Asking for clarification on what should be in a use case
16:32:12 <janina> jb: A terse description of how a particular user's needs are facilitated by table summary
16:32:20 <janina> jb: Good to have 3 or 4 such 
16:33:01 <Judy> action: Lynn draft a few use cases for table summary
16:33:09 <cfit> thanks lynn
16:35:06 <Judy> zakim, close this item
16:35:06 <Zakim> agendum 3 closed
16:35:07 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:35:08 <Zakim> 4. generated content:  update on new discussion sub-group and/or thread? <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13668> [from Judy]
16:35:13 <Judy> zakim, take up next item
16:35:13 <Zakim> agendum 4. "generated content:  update on new discussion sub-group and/or thread? <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13668>" taken up [from Judy]
16:36:56 <janina> jf: The issue for the subteam discussion is that CSS can generate content that may, or may not be a11y
16:37:39 <janina> jb: Similar question has come up in 508 discussions, wondering whether this relates to ATAG type discussions?
16:38:01 <janina> jb: Wondering about involving AT_WG people
16:38:22 <janina> jf: Think it's mostly a CSS problem
16:38:40 <janina> jb: OK
16:38:44 <Judy> s/AT_WG/AUWG/
16:38:50 <Judy> zakim, close this item
16:38:50 <Zakim> agendum 4 closed
16:38:51 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:38:53 <Zakim> 5. input into process review? [from Judy]
16:38:54 <Judy> zakim, take up next item
16:38:54 <Zakim> agendum 5. "input into process review?" taken up [from Judy]
16:40:47 <Judy> zakim, close this item
16:40:47 <Zakim> agendum 5 closed
16:40:48 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:40:50 <Judy> zakim, take up next item
16:40:50 <Zakim> 6. other business? [from Judy]
16:40:51 <Zakim> agendum 6. "other business?" taken up [from Judy]
16:40:58 <Judy> zakim, close this item
16:40:58 <Zakim> agendum 6 closed
16:40:59 <Zakim> I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
16:41:00 <Judy> zakim, take up next item
16:41:00 <Zakim> 7. confirm next meeting; identify next scribe; adjourn. [from Judy]
16:41:02 <Zakim> agendum 7. "confirm next meeting; identify next scribe; adjourn." taken up [from Judy]
16:42:33 <Judy> judy -- tentatively changing time to 4 - 5pm US Eastern; JB will check on list with others.
16:43:19 <janina> rrsagent, make minutes
16:43:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/26-text-minutes.html janina
16:44:18 <janina> zakim, bye
16:44:18 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees were Judy, Janina, John_Foliot, +44.207.391.aaaa
16:44:18 <Zakim> Zakim has left #text
16:44:27 <janina> rrsagent, make minutes
16:44:27 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/26-text-minutes.html janina
16:45:08 <janina> rrsagent, make log public
16:45:14 <janina> rrsagent, make minutes
16:45:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/26-text-minutes.html janina
16:49:29 <janina> janina has left #text
16:50:14 <Laura> Laura has joined #text
16:51:12 <Laura> Is the Text Alternatives meeting adjourned?