15:58:40 RRSAgent has joined #html-wg
15:58:40 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/09/06-html-wg-irc
15:58:42 RRSAgent, make logs public
15:58:42 Zakim has joined #html-wg
15:58:44 Zakim, this will be html_wg
15:58:44 ok, trackbot; I see HTML_WG()12:00PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
15:58:45 Meeting: HTML Weekly Teleconference
15:58:45 Date: 06 September 2012
15:59:07 paulc has joined #html-wg
15:59:09 krisk has joined #html-wg
15:59:18 HTML_WG()12:00PM has now started
15:59:26 +Sam
16:00:08 +[Microsoft]
16:00:12 MartinSoukup has joined #html-wg
16:00:31 zakim, [Microsoft] has paulc
16:00:31 +paulc; got it
16:00:36 MFoladare has joined #html-wg
16:00:38 zakim, who is on the call?
16:00:38 On the phone I see Sam, [Microsoft]
16:00:39 [Microsoft] has paulc
16:00:42 + +1.613.287.aaaa
16:00:57 zakim, aaaa is MartinSoukup
16:00:57 +MartinSoukup; got it
16:01:12 +Radhika_Roy
16:01:17 + +49.322.110.8.aabb
16:01:20 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2012JulSep/0025.html
16:01:22 zakim, microsoft has me
16:01:22 +jaymunro; got it
16:01:28 +[Microsoft.a]
16:01:44 janina has joined #html-wg
16:01:45 +[Microsoft.aa]
16:01:45 zakim, Microsoft.a is krisk
16:01:46 +krisk; got it
16:01:54 +Plh
16:02:09 +??P9
16:02:19 Eliot has joined #html-wg
16:02:19 zakim, ??P9 is Janina
16:02:19 +Janina; got it
16:02:24 I think [Microsoft] has paulc, [Microsoft.a] has Jay and [Microsoft.aa] has Kris K
16:02:48 You have to wait for Zakim - a little slow at times
16:02:51 +[Microsoft.a]
16:02:59 zakim, microsoft.a has me
16:02:59 +Eliot; got it
16:03:14 zakim, who is on the call?
16:03:14 On the phone I see Sam, [Microsoft], MartinSoukup, Radhika_Roy, +49.322.110.8.aabb, krisk, [Microsoft.aa], Plh, Janina, [Microsoft.a]
16:03:16 [Microsoft.a] has Eliot
16:03:16 [Microsoft] has jaymunro
16:03:34 zakim, [Microsoft] has paulc
16:03:34 +paulc; got it
16:03:39 Zakim, call Mike
16:03:39 ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made
16:03:41 +Mike
16:03:41 +Judy
16:04:00 zakim, aabb is Barbara
16:04:00 +Barbara; got it
16:04:12 +[Apple]
16:04:35 Zakim, Apple is me
16:04:35 +hober; got it
16:04:55 scribenick: paulc
16:05:30 Topic: Actions due today
16:05:30 agenda?
16:05:44 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2012JulSep/0025.html
16:06:05 No actions
16:06:06 +??P31
16:06:11 Zakim, ??P31 is me
16:06:11 +darobin; got it
16:06:16 Topic: New issues this week
16:06:27 No new issues
16:06:34 Topic: Items closes last week
16:06:39 ISSUE-131?
16:06:39 ISSUE-131 -- Should we add a caret location API to canvas, or is the focus API sufficient? -- closed
16:06:39 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/131
16:06:57 Consensus to defer to future version of HTML
16:08:00 Split for ISSUE-74
16:08:10 The original bug will be marked for future processing
16:08:14 ISSUE-201
16:08:24 bug related to 131 could be 7011 or 7404
16:08:24 ISSUE-201?
16:08:24 ISSUE-201 -- Provide canvas location and hit testing capability to fallback content -- open
16:08:24 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/201
16:08:27 cabanier has joined #html-wg
16:08:31 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/index.php?title=User:Eoconnor/ISSUE-201&oldid=13386
16:08:35 CfC closed on Aug 30
16:08:44 gitbot has joined #html-wg
16:08:44 [html] darobin pushed 1 new commit to master: https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/20ab137355a21e4f6de2740ae997819f1b8f01ed
16:08:44 [html/master] revert addition of gopher as per https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18067 - Robin Berjon
16:08:47 gitbot has left #html-wg
16:08:50 We have consensus on the above proposal and waiting for Editors to apply it.
16:09:02 q+ to comment on issue 206
16:09:03 ISSUE-206?
16:09:03 ISSUE-206 -- Should HTML5 have a meta generator exception to the alt requirement? -- open
16:09:03 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/206
16:09:04 +mjs
16:09:22 We have consensus on part of this ISSUE-206
16:09:27 gitbot has joined #html-wg
16:09:27 [html] rubys pushed 3 new commits to feature/whatwg: https://github.com/w3c/html/compare/15888f44778f...63289e0e25cd
16:09:27 [html/feature/whatwg] [e] (0) I don't really understand why this is an improvement, but in the interests of avoiding unnecessary forking... - ianh
16:09:30 [html/feature/whatwg] [e] (0) Provide a hook for other specs. - ianh
16:09:32 [html/feature/whatwg] [e] (0) Explain why gopher isn't on the list - ianh
16:09:34 gitbot has left #html-wg
16:09:36 Mike Smith: I have been trying to get consensus here
16:10:02 Mike smith: I am not planning to work further on this until next month.
16:10:17 q+
16:10:20 Mike Smith: I wanted to sync up with others and cannot do that until next monght.
16:10:21 ack Mike
16:10:21 MikeSmith, you wanted to comment on issue 206
16:10:55 Mike Smith: We have made positive progress to agree to drop metagenerator
16:11:18 Mike Smith: Coming up with an alternative is separate and harder to achieve.
16:11:49 ack plh
16:12:22 PLH: Mike - are you saying you still want to solve this in HTML5.0? Or should we defer the alternative to HTML.Next?
16:12:37 Mike Smith: I am okay with deferring it but Henry might not agree.
16:12:40 erikadoyle has joined #html-wg
16:13:15 -darobin
16:13:18 Mike Smith: I was to be in sync with henry to ensure that validation services are in sync.
16:13:35 adrianba has joined #html-wg
16:13:38 Maciej: Are Ted's proposal acceptable to Mike?
16:13:53 Mike: What is acceptable to me depends on what is acceptable to Henry.
16:13:56 +[IPcaller]
16:14:08 +[Microsoft.aaa]
16:14:14 Mike: Henry and Mike came up with a very long attribute name and others did not like it.
16:14:19 zakim, [Microsoft.aaa] is me
16:14:19 +adrianba; got it
16:14:33 Mike: I am neutral about the attribute name but I want to wait until a talk to Henry.
16:14:53 q?
16:14:58 Mike: Not much to add - let's move on
16:15:05 Topic: Items Closing this week
16:15:11 No items closing this week
16:15:24 Topic: Items closing next week
16:15:31 No items closing next week
16:15:40 rrsagent, pointer
16:15:40 See http://www.w3.org/2012/09/06-html-wg-irc#T16-15-40
16:15:41 Topic: New Calls this week
16:16:00 No new calls this week
16:16:08 Topic: New surveys this week
16:16:13 No new surveys
16:16:23 Topic: Decisions this week
16:16:27 No new decisions
16:16:34 Topic: Other business
16:16:38 ISSUE-30?
16:16:38 ISSUE-30 -- Should HTML 5 include a longdesc attribute for images -- open
16:16:38 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/30
16:16:59 Sam: Lots of discussion on the preceding TF meeting
16:17:05 q+
16:17:10 q?
16:17:27 Are there minutes available?
16:17:31 Judy has joined #html-wg
16:17:47 http://www.w3.org/2012/09/06-html-a11y-minutes.html
16:17:48 q+
16:18:01 Mike: There was no agenda but the meeting did occur.
16:18:58 Mike: Richard help this discusion about ISSUE-204. Several others participated in that discussion. M Cooper scribed that discussion well.
16:19:08 Lachy has joined #html-wg
16:19:55 Mike: Rich's points helped clarify some items for me on the call. Where the points of disagreement are and where the possible agreements might be.
16:20:00 ack paulc
16:20:10 ack mjs
16:20:25 Maciej: Could someone give a brief summary of the discussion?
16:20:39 Sam: I have excerpts ready and can comment on them.
16:20:46 Maciej: Sounds like a good plan.
16:20:50 (11:24:43 AM) Stevef: i agree with mike that we should try to reach consensus without formal objection
16:20:50 +1
16:21:10 (11:35:28 AM) MichaelC: propose we say something like "in the future, user agents my have the ability to expose semantics of hidden descriptions" and encourage providing those semantics
16:21:10 Please post suggestioned rewording into the bug report(s) themselves. If we converge to a small number of stable proposals quickly, I would support reopening issue 204 and proceeding directly to survey on those proposals.
16:21:53 q?
16:22:14 Sam: If we can get the proposals out maybe re-opening the issue and going to survey on a small number of proposals.
16:22:40 -darobin
16:22:40 Janina: I don't think we are that stage.
16:22:52 Judy: Text is still not enough.
16:23:05 Janina: And Rich S is on vacation for a couple of week.s
16:23:24 +??P4
16:23:38 q+
16:23:42 Sam: current text is not enough but maybe we can get a small number of stable proposals
16:23:47 q?
16:23:54 ack plh
16:24:17 plh means hober
16:24:23 oh
16:24:31 yeah
16:24:33 Philippe: Rich was reporting on the TF that he was talking to James. It would be useful for James and Rich to be in sync.
16:24:47 Ted: I agree and we continue to work the issue.
16:24:50 q?
16:24:52 s/and Rich/and Ted/
16:24:57 (11:38:58 AM) MichaelC: it would be OK for HTML to have an attribute to solve this problem
16:24:57 ... perhaps "LongdescZeroEdit" could be be updated to advocate a new "describedby" (sans "aria-") attribute?
16:25:37 Sam: someone proposed a specific HTML attribute
16:25:45 Janina: I suggested this in the TF meeting.
16:26:47 Janina: Second proposal PF would be willing to mint a ARIA 1.1 (post ARIA 1.0) attribute for this functionality.
16:26:58 q+
16:27:12 ack next
16:27:14 q+
16:27:38 ack next
16:28:13 q?
16:28:20 Judy: On the TF meeting there was also discussion about the suggestion to split out ARIA from HTML5
16:29:02 The PFWG charter: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/charter201006
16:29:06 PF has Requirements for ARIA 2.0 (Note) in the charter
16:29:23 ARIA charter is here, for reference: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/charter201006
16:29:49 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/charter201006#deliverables
16:30:02 The current charter says "Requirements for ARIA 2.0 (Note) "
16:30:27 q+
16:30:34 q?
16:31:09 ack Judy
16:31:10 janina: The current charter has us creating ARIA 1.0. The Requirements is being done.
16:31:22 q+
16:31:28 q+
16:31:32 q?
16:31:37 Judy: There is discussiona about ARIA 1.1 ideas and some longer term features.
16:32:05 -darobin
16:32:10 Judy: PF is working on a charter extension which might include some ARIA 1.1 work.
16:32:35 +[IPcaller]
16:32:36 q?
16:32:43 ack next
16:32:54 q-
16:33:02 Maciej: Is there a draft available of the ARIA,Next requirements?
16:33:18 Janina: There are tracker items but no actual document.
16:33:27 (11:42:40 AM) MichaelC: plh: it's clear that people here don't want to remove ARIA from HTML
16:33:27 Agreed. The harder question is: can we get people who actively want to make ARIA in HTML to work to provide proposals that they can live with? Not providing a proposal and objecting to all is not a path forward. I'm pleased to see that people have resumed providing suggestions in the form of comments on the existing bugs.
16:33:32 RRSAgent, make minutes
16:33:32 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/09/06-html-wg-minutes.html MikeSmith
16:33:42 q+
16:34:18 ack next
16:34:22 s/There is discussiona about ARIA 1.1 ideas and some longer term features./ARIA 2.0 requirements discussion has also identified potential nearer-term ARIA 1.1 features.//
16:34:56 Judy: In terms of where the discussion happens on ISSUE-204 soltuion, that is part of the Formal Objection.
16:35:34 Judy: The discussion needs to be happening in close cooperations with the WAI TF.
16:35:51 q?
16:35:57 q+
16:36:03 Sam: Not a problem but the conclusions from any WAI TF discussions they should coome back to the HTML WG
16:36:30 Philippe: Could some one give a ptr to the WAI PF Tracker?
16:36:32 q+
16:37:11 Judy: It would be clearer in a few weeks since they are working on the Tracker items.
16:37:24 ack next
16:37:26 Judy: PF is interested in HTML WG feedback.
16:37:42 janina: I don't have the URI available.
16:38:09 s/working on the Tracker items/working on separating out ARIA 1.1 and ARIA 2.0; and my understanding is that PFWG will be interested in feedback and input on the 1.1 list.
16:38:18 Janina: The idea of the ARIA 1.1 items is to handle items quickly and to handle items related to HTML discussion.
16:38:35 Judy: This might be available in 3-4 weeks.
16:39:18 Judy: I was on the queue to point the problems with pulling out ARIA from HTML5.
16:39:32 Judy: There is on list and off list discussion.
16:39:43 q+
16:39:48 ack Judy
16:40:10 Judy: People are reacting to the proposal.
16:40:31 Sam: But now people are actually discussing the technical matters in ISSUE-204
16:41:31 Judy: The FO contains both technical and procedural objections.
16:41:45 Judy: Solving only the technical problems may not be enough.
16:42:01 Judy: The technical discussion need to happen on the ARIA TF.
16:42:10 I just want to note for the record in the minutes that Judy said it's not her or Janina's preferred outcome to make progress on resolving the Formal Objection
16:42:44 Janina: The procedural issues are not about ARIA. 149 without problems and 1 with problems.
16:43:03 s/Judy: This might be available in 3-4 weeks./Janina: This might be available in 3-4 weeks./
16:43:17 Janina: There has not been a proble overwhelmingly but there is one that is a problem.
16:43:33 Sam: Janina: The other 149 were done correctly?
16:43:59 Judy: I think Janina is saying that the outcome was okay.
16:44:25 Judy: What is the agenda item?
16:44:36 Sam: Issue-30 is the agenda item.
16:44:58 Sam: It is appropriate to discuss the Formal objection since it is blocking ISSUE-30.
16:45:12 ack next
16:45:17 fww, I agree with Sam that that the discussion here has been useful
16:45:43 jb: it sounds are though you are actually discussing the FO itself, which is both procedural and technical, and which I don't think is appropriate to discuss here.
16:46:10