15:02:36 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #html-a11y
15:02:36 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-html-a11y-irc
15:04:20 <Judy> Judy has joined #html-a11y
15:04:41 <lwatson> rrsagent, set logs world-visible
15:05:00 <lwatson> agenda+ longdesc spec: ongoing CfC, length of LC, tests
15:05:13 <lwatson> agenda+ HTML5 testing and demonstrating interoperability for Candidate
15:05:18 <MarkS> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:05:19 <Zakim> sorry, MarkS, I don't know what conference this is
15:05:19 <Zakim> On IRC I see Judy, RRSAgent, Zakim, lwatson, David_, MarkS, davidb, chaals, IanPouncey, janina_, hober, trackbot, MichaelC
15:05:23 <lwatson> agenda+ any Sub-team reports
15:05:30 <lwatson> agenda+ updated TF work statement
15:05:35 <MarkS> zakim, this is 2119
15:05:35 <Zakim> ok, MarkS; that matches WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM
15:05:42 <MarkS> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:05:42 <Zakim> On the phone I see David_MacDonald, MarkS, ??P13, [IPcaller]
15:06:00 <MarkS> zakim IP is lwatson
15:06:11 <MarkS> zakim, IPcaller is lwatson
15:06:11 <Zakim> +lwatson; got it
15:06:32 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:06:46 <lwatson> agenda+ proposal for new
15:06:48 <lwatson> decision process
15:06:48 <MarkS> zakim, P13 is janina_
15:06:48 <Zakim> sorry, MarkS, I do not recognize a party named 'P13'
15:06:50 <chaals> zakim, [ip is me
15:06:50 <Zakim> +chaals; got it
15:06:51 <Zakim> +Judy
15:06:55 <lwatson> agenda+ Any Other Business
15:07:01 <MarkS> zakim, ??P13 is janina
15:07:01 <Zakim> +janina; got it
15:07:04 <lwatson> zakim, save agenda
15:07:09 <chaals> zakim, who is here?
15:07:10 <Zakim> ok, lwatson, the agenda has been written to http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-html-a11y-agenda.rdf
15:07:12 <Zakim> On the phone I see David_MacDonald, MarkS, janina, lwatson, chaals, Judy
15:07:12 <Zakim> On IRC I see Judy, RRSAgent, Zakim, lwatson, David_, MarkS, davidb, chaals, IanPouncey, janina_, hober, trackbot, MichaelC
15:07:12 <Judy> zakim, who's on the phone?
15:07:13 <Zakim> On the phone I see David_MacDonald, MarkS, janina, lwatson, chaals, Judy
15:07:25 <lwatson> scribe: Léonie Watson
15:07:52 <chaals> [chaals owes Leonie a nice dinner]
15:07:52 <lwatson> zakim, next item
15:07:52 <Zakim> agendum 1. "longdesc spec: ongoing CfC, length of LC, tests" taken up [from lwatson]
15:08:30 <lwatson> CMN: Currently in CFC. Assuming it passes we'll ask PF and HTML to publish a last call.
15:08:55 <lwatson> CMN: Question is how long the LC should last. Minimum is three weeks, optimum is six weeks.
15:09:31 <lwatson> JS: We're required with LC to leave 60 days for patent policy. So wecan have short LC, but can't move to CR in less than 60 days.
15:10:24 <Zakim> +[Apple]
15:10:31 <hober> Zakim, Apple has me
15:10:31 <Zakim> +hober; got it
15:10:58 <lwatson> CMN: The policy doesn't stop you from going forward, but in practice it would be annoying to have a recommendation before.
15:11:34 <Judy> q+
15:11:37 <lwatson> CMN: The odds of us finding a patent exclusion now are very low.
15:11:51 <janina_> http://www.w3.org/2003/12/22-pp-faq.html
15:12:15 <lwatson> JS: I'm not sure that is correct. Will follow up.
15:12:52 <lwatson> JB: If you need additional time, it's better to give people it under LC review.
15:13:11 <chaals> s/very low/very low, given that the technology is extremely old/
15:13:17 <chaals> ack ju
15:13:25 <chaals> q+ to propose a 6-day last call
15:13:35 <lwatson> JB: Whether you think there is a patent or not is immaterial.
15:14:15 <lwatson> JB: I feel if there is a process it should be followed.
15:14:32 <lwatson> JS: Would much prefer a shorter LC, but don't think the patent policy supports this.
15:15:05 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:15:18 <lwatson> JS: Safest to say 60 days.
15:15:18 <SteveF> SteveF has joined #html-a11y
15:15:26 <lwatson> CMN: Anyone object to a 60 day LC?
15:15:37 <lwatson> CMN: Hearing no objections.
15:15:48 <MarkS> zakim, IPcaller is SteveF
15:15:48 <Zakim> +SteveF; got it
15:15:56 <lwatson> rrsagent, make minutes
15:15:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-html-a11y-minutes.html lwatson
15:16:12 <chaals> RESOLUTION: last call review period will be 60 days
15:17:18 <lwatson> CMN: We need some words. Should take a day, maybe two.
15:17:24 <lwatson> zakim, next topic
15:17:24 <Zakim> I don't understand 'next topic', lwatson
15:17:31 <lwatson> zakim, next topic
15:17:31 <Zakim> I don't understand 'next topic', lwatson
15:17:36 <lwatson> zakim, next topic
15:17:36 <Zakim> I don't understand 'next topic', lwatson
15:17:39 <chaals> s/words/tests and a report of what passed the,/
15:17:42 <chaals> zakim, next item
15:17:42 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, chaals
15:17:45 <chaals> q?
15:17:48 <chaals> ack me
15:17:48 <Zakim> chaals, you wanted to propose a 6-day last call
15:17:55 <chaals> zakim, next item
15:17:55 <Zakim> agendum 2. "HTML5 testing and demonstrating interoperability for Candidate" taken up [from lwatson]
15:18:45 <MarkS> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Results_of_Spec_Review
15:18:50 <lwatson> MS: Met last week. Made it half way throuh the spec. Results logedon the wiki.
15:19:44 <lwatson> MS: The CFC from the HTML WG specifically asks for evidence of non-interoperability.
15:20:12 <lwatson> MS: Expect we'll assign tasks to individual TF members with expertise in the given area.
15:20:37 <lwatson> rrsagent, make minutes
15:20:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-html-a11y-minutes.html lwatson
15:21:05 <SteveF> q+
15:21:12 <chaals> q+
15:21:29 <lwatson> JF: Strikes me that there could be a situation where we have to provide evidence of a negative. Is not finding an implementation sufficient for example?
15:21:38 <chaals> s/JF/JS/
15:21:47 <chaals> ack st
15:21:49 <lwatson> JS: It feels like a rule change. It's not clear to me.
15:22:38 <chaals> ack me
15:22:54 <lwatson> SF: With regard to the ARIA information, providing evidence is possible, but will take work.
15:23:35 <lwatson> CMN: As I understand it, non-interoperability can be demonstrated by taking two implementations and showing that neither works.
15:24:15 <lwatson> CMN: If we think part of the spec isn't interoperable, there can be a formal objection.
15:24:17 <Judy> q+
15:25:01 <chaals> ack ju
15:25:05 <janina_> q+
15:25:54 <chaals> q+
15:25:58 <lwatson> JB: We should provide more context, rather than just saying we object.
15:26:06 <lwatson> rrsagent, make minutes
15:26:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-html-a11y-minutes.html lwatson
15:26:20 <plh> plh has joined #html-a11y
15:26:25 <Zakim> +Plh
15:26:50 <chaals> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:26:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-html-a11y-minutes.html chaals
15:27:10 <chaals> q?
15:27:33 <lwatson> JB briefs PLH on recent discussion.
15:28:31 <chaals> ack jan
15:29:56 <lwatson> JS: This seems to go back to some of the problems we used to have. Where original decisions were not correct from an accessibility perspective.
15:30:38 <lwatson> JS: Don't believe it was intentional, but it feels as though accessibility was given a different bar, perhaps because we weren't in the room.
15:30:45 <chaals> ack me
15:31:26 <lwatson> CMN: I was in the room. I don't think the WG has the expectation that we'll go through this like performing monkies.
15:32:13 <lwatson> CMN: I will clarify this with the chairs, but I think we're being asked to provide our input, and provide information/evidence for interoperability issues.
15:32:30 <lwatson> rrsagent, make minutes
15:32:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-html-a11y-minutes.html lwatson
15:32:56 <plh> q+
15:33:04 <lwatson> CMN: It may be that the ARIA stuff is not at a point where it's interoperable enough just to say it works.
15:33:08 <chaals> ack plh
15:33:55 <lwatson> PLH: For the parts considered interoperable, it's asking people to validate that status.
15:34:15 <lwatson> JS: We're talking about parts that are identified as interoperable (green), but which may not be.
15:34:21 <MarkS> link to CfC -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Jun/0033.html
15:34:27 <SteveF> here you go http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Jun/0071.html
15:34:33 <SteveF> q+
15:34:41 <Judy> q+
15:35:01 <chaals> ack st
15:35:07 <lwatson> CMN: We're building problems that may arise, into something more.
15:36:26 <lwatson> SF: Examples in my reply: HTML elements having interoperability at the accessibility layer in relation to ARIA.
15:37:10 <lwatson> SF: Heading rankings, images with no alt having role=presentation for example.
15:37:35 <Judy> Judy: the standard of evidence and consequences from the CFC read: "Objections of the form "features in 2.8.2.1 HTMLAllCollection are not currently interoperable" MUST be accompanied with specific evidence of non-interoperability, otherwise such objections will not be accepted by the Chairs."
15:37:35 <chaals> ack ju
15:38:06 <plh> q+
15:38:23 <lwatson> JB: Commenting that something doesn't work probably won't be sufficient.
15:39:07 <lwatson> JB: Having to prove a negative will be difficult.
15:39:16 <lwatson> q+
15:39:42 <chaals> q+ to say we are not being required to prove a negative. There is a requirement to show evidence of a problem.
15:40:25 <MarkS> Overview doc -> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tests-cr-exit.html
15:40:30 <lwatson> PLH: Steve's email mentions the outline algorithmn, which is at risk. Thought this was only about the interoperable parts.
15:40:51 <lwatson> SF: Where ARIA is referenced is in parts that are interoperable.
15:41:08 <lwatson> SF: The requirements for default ARIA semantics.
15:41:11 <SteveF> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/dom.html#sec-implicit-aria-semantics
15:41:24 <lwatson> SF: This section is all green/interoperable.
15:41:40 <lwatson> SF: It shouldn't be. Would have objected if I'd been there when this was discussed.
15:42:30 <lwatson> CMN: The ARIA section of HTML makes statements aout at risk things like the outline algorithmn for example.
15:42:43 <lwatson> PLH: A granularity problem?
15:43:14 <lwatson> CMN: Given that, do you see an explanation of an issue being sufficient?
15:43:31 <lwatson> PLH: Suggest you talk to the chairs about this.
15:43:46 <Judy> q+
15:43:57 <chaals> ACTION: chaals to talk to HTML chairs and check whether we really need masses of work, or can just sort this out
15:43:57 <trackbot> Created ACTION-185 - Talk to HTML chairs and check whether we really need masses of work, or can just sort this out [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2013-07-04].
15:44:00 <chaals> ack pl
15:44:05 <chaals> ack lw
15:44:46 <chaals> LW: Seems we are making a big deal, wouldn't it be better to ask the chairs?
15:45:38 <chaals> q+ to say I have the action item to talk to the HTML chairs. Is there more that we need to discuss now?
15:45:56 <lwatson> JB: The original review document wasn't accessible, but Mark had to sort that out.
15:45:59 <chaals> ack me
15:45:59 <Zakim> chaals, you wanted to say we are not being required to prove a negative. There is a requirement to show evidence of a problem. and to say I have the action item to talk to the HTML
15:46:02 <Zakim> ... chairs. Is there more that we need to discuss now?
15:46:43 <lwatson> CMN: Noted comments on document accessibility, also have taken an action to discuss work/provision of evidence etc. with the HTML WG chairs.
15:46:53 <lwatson> rrsagent, make minutes
15:46:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-html-a11y-minutes.html lwatson
15:47:18 <Judy> s/had to sort that out/fixed that/
15:47:57 <lwatson> MS: Seems the criteria to change something from green to pink, is harder than the process to make it green in the first place.
15:48:21 <lwatson> SF: Can run some quick tests to demonstrate. Not knowing what evidence is acceptable makes that tricky though.
15:48:35 <lwatson> JB: Familiar concern from before.
15:49:00 <lwatson> CMN: We can talk until next week, we still won't know what *they think.
15:49:26 <lwatson> JB: Mark's comment seems relevant to me though.
15:49:48 <lwatson> JS: The HTML call follows this, where I typically represent the TF. Chaals can you join?
15:49:58 <lwatson> zakim, next item
15:49:58 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, lwatson
15:50:05 <chaals> q?
15:50:08 <chaals> ack ju
15:50:11 <chaals> zakim, next item
15:50:11 <Zakim> agendum 3. "any Sub-team reports" taken up [from lwatson]
15:50:13 <lwatson> zakim, next item
15:50:13 <Zakim> agendum 3 was just opened, lwatson
15:50:57 <chaals> LW: Please look at closed bugs
15:50:58 <lwatson> MS: Bug triage met yesterday. Nothing to report.
15:51:13 <lwatson> LW: Will remind everyone about the closed bugs that still need review.
15:51:15 <chaals> zakim, next item
15:51:15 <Zakim> agendum 4. "updated TF work statement" taken up [from lwatson]
15:51:23 <lwatson> rrsagent, make minutes
15:51:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-html-a11y-minutes.html lwatson
15:51:41 <lwatson> CMN: A proposal for an updated statement has been made.
15:52:02 <MarkS> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/html-tf-draft.html
15:53:46 <lwatson> MS: We separated out the scope of work, better defined the things we're working on, revised the participation section.
15:54:16 <lwatson> CMN: Understand we need to look at this and then hold a CFC?
15:54:29 <lwatson> JB: Would need to be approved by both parent WGs.
15:54:48 <lwatson> JB: Appreciate the work fromMark and Chaals on this.
15:54:54 <lwatson> zakim, next item
15:54:54 <Zakim> agendum 5. "proposal for new" taken up [from lwatson]
15:55:58 <lwatson> CMN: Re last agenda item, if no discussion in next few days it'll go for CFC and run for 10 days or so.
15:56:44 <chaals> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Jun/0085.html
15:57:27 <lwatson> CMN: Outlines proposed decision policy.
15:57:39 <lwatson> JS: Does the definition of 7 days include weekends?
15:57:47 <Judy> q+
15:58:04 <chaals> ack ju
15:58:10 <chaals> zakim, agenda?
15:58:10 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda:
15:58:11 <Zakim> 5. proposal for new [from lwatson]
15:58:11 <Zakim> 6. Any Other Business [from lwatson]
15:58:28 <chaals> s/for new/for new decision procedure/
15:58:32 <lwatson> JB: Does it make sense to capture practices that work well in other groups? 7 days may be tricky.
15:59:23 <lwatson> JB: One way is to tie it into who's active in the group. For example 72 hours for those active within the group.
15:59:48 <Zakim> -Plh
16:00:09 <Judy> s/72 hours/72 hours across business hours/
16:00:20 <lwatson> CMN: My personal inclination, unless someone is worried about it being used unfairly, we won't have a problem.
16:01:08 <lwatson> JB: I would suggest that focusing on active members of the group would be helpful.
16:01:17 <lwatson> rrsagent, make minutes
16:01:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-html-a11y-minutes.html lwatson
16:02:04 <lwatson> JS: Note, next Thursday is 4th July in the US.
16:03:09 <Judy> zakim, who's on the call?
16:03:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see David_MacDonald, MarkS, janina, lwatson, chaals, Judy, [Apple], SteveF
16:03:11 <Zakim> [Apple] has hober
16:03:16 <Zakim> -[Apple]
16:03:58 <Zakim> -chaals
16:03:59 <Zakim> -lwatson
16:04:00 <Zakim> -David_MacDonald
16:04:02 <Zakim> -Judy
16:04:02 <Zakim> -MarkS
16:04:03 <Zakim> -janina
16:04:43 <Zakim> -SteveF
16:04:44 <Zakim> WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM has ended
16:04:44 <Zakim> Attendees were David_MacDonald, MarkS, lwatson, chaals, Judy, janina, hober, SteveF, Plh
16:04:54 <plh> plh has left #html-a11y
16:07:37 <lwatson> Meeting: HTML A11y TF weekly telecon
16:07:45 <lwatson> rrsagent, make minutes
16:07:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-html-a11y-minutes.html lwatson
16:08:18 <lwatson> Chair: Chaals McCathie Nevile
16:08:24 <lwatson> rrsagent, make minutes
16:08:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-html-a11y-minutes.html lwatson
16:10:27 <lwatson> zakim, please part
16:10:27 <Zakim> Zakim has left #html-a11y
16:10:34 <lwatson> rrsagent, please part
16:10:34 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-html-a11y-actions.rdf :
16:10:34 <RRSAgent> ACTION: chaals to talk to HTML chairs and check whether we really need masses of work, or can just sort this out [1]
16:10:34 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-html-a11y-irc#T15-43-57