See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 20 May 2015
<janina> agenda: this
<janina> Yes, James and I are chatting
<janina> Rich, we're on Webex!
<janina> Webex 647 857 439#
<scribe> scribe: joanie
Janina: I'm in the middle of
media. It's a long spec.
... I need to tell them that I'm working on it still. I'll do
that today.
MC: That would be a good idea.
action-1615
<trackbot> action-1615 -- Janina Sajka to Review media capture and streams http://www.w3.org/tr/mediacapture-streams/ -- due 2015-05-06 -- OPEN
<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/actions/1615
MC: There's a bunch of actions
that are not due yet.
... Aside from media capture streams, there's nothing else
under spec review.
MC: Everything else is due 27th
or 29th
... Canvas 2D context is in last call.
Janina: We're famailiar with that
via HTML A11y task force.
... Rich is on top of that.
<MichaelC> HTML Canvas 2D Context
Janina: We were expecting this
publication. We had some language changes last minute.
... I'm not sure if those changes made it into last call.
... We'll continue debugging the two implementations.
... Then we'll have full support, including hit regions.
MC: About the CR, this is under
the old process where it cannot easily change.
... That means we need to do things in last call.
FE: Rich told me hit regions was implemented in Chrome and Firefox.
Janina: I think both are amenable
to bug reports.
... And we'll continue to manage this in the HTML A11y task
force.
MC: So we don't need an action in PF?
Janina: No
MC: They do not provide a last
call due date.
... That means we don't know when they'll go to CR.
Janina: I'll remind Paul to state
that.
... I don't think we want the spec to change in CR, but do want
it to be long enough to catch bugs.
MC: It cannot exit CR unless it passes.
Janina: I'm talking about bugs in implementation; not the spec.
MC: CSS flexbox is up for last
call.
... I believe we've reviewed it before. I know we've had
concerns.
<MichaelC> CSS Flexible Box Layout Module Level 1
MC: I'm not sure if we have
anything to comment upon at this time.
... Candidate recommendations.
RS: Bo is participating with the CSS group and is on top of this.
<MichaelC> TTML Text and Image Profiles for Internet Media Subtitles and Captions 1.0
MC: I think we took a look at
TTML Text and Image Profiles for Internet Media Subtitles and
Captions 1.0 at the last CR.
... If they're in CR, there are presumably substantial
changes.
... But I don't see a list of what they are.
Janina: Would we be out of line to request a list of changes?
MC: It wouldn't impact this
publication.
... In general, I'd like to establish some best practices for
review.
... They've made some changes with respect to frame rate
synchronization.
... There's some editorial edits here and there.
<Gottfried> I am trying to get in. But it says i am the first participant on the conference.
<janina> Gottfried: We're on Webex: 647 857 439#
MC: The initial value of text align should be center; before it didn't have a default value.
<Gottfried> What URL?
MC: Everything else looks like clarifications.
<janina> https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m6e3f82ceee1b44268fd496d928c40001
MC: Agreed that we don't need to review this?
Janina: I don't think we need to review it.
MC: Web Notifications
<MichaelC> Web Notifications
MC: This one is under the new
process.
... I have the sense we've looked at this before. I don't
recall if we had concerns.
Janina: We did, concerns about an
icon.
... But I think we backed off.
MC: Reads from spec.
Janina: I think that was the result of our comments.
MC: There's no obvious
ChangeLog.
... Three specs from us and two from HTML which use "ARIA" in
their titles.
Janina: We got review on the Notes on using ARIA in HTML.
MC: The names of the two documents confuses me.
Janina: Both are Steve's.
... The Notes document is basically best practice.
... There was quite a lot of discussion on list. Everyone
approved publication.
... We need to be sure Notes and the ARIA Authoring Practices
remain in sync.
MC: I see this is REC track. Is that correct?
Janina: No.
... Action me to point this out.
<MichaelC> ACTION: janina to file comment on Notes on Using ARIA in HTML http://www.w3.org/TR/aria-in-html/ that it should not be on the Rec track [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/20-pf-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1641 - File comment on notes on using aria in html http://www.w3.org/tr/aria-in-html/ that it should not be on the rec track [on Janina Sajka - due 2015-05-27].
MC: There is now a means to
publish more frequently via a new automated tool.
... The current version of this tool doesn't yet support
non-REC-track documents.
... The tool should allow NOTE-track documents to also be
published.
Janina: Did they even think about it?
MC: Yes, there's documentation
stating that you cannot publishing NOTE-track stuff.
... Which is why I haven't moved us to that process yet.
Janina: ARIA in HTML is the
breakout of the section that talks about ARIA
conformance.
... We had a lot of discussion about not having joint ownership
of this document.
... And that document is on the automated process, and it is
REC-track.
... We need to proactively review it from time to time now as a
result.
... This is a coordination question we haven't talked about
yet.
... If the group splits, the review working group would need to
stay on top of things remaining in sync.
... And it will be up to the ARIA group to decide about joint
ownership or not.
MC: There are two other docs that are working drafts.
MC: I had gotten a month ahead of
our three-month advance.
... So we don't have any new community groups to look at as a
result.
Janina: Rich, we have an
extension definition.
... And we want a formal consensus?
<janina> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/wiki/ARIAExtensions
RS: We ran into an issue with
Digital Publishing.
... We need to be able to extend ARIA without impacting ARIA
core.
... So the Extensions proposal allows other groups to write an
extension module.
<richardschwerdtfeger> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/wiki/ARIAExtensions
RS: Shane and I worked on this
(link above)
... Anyone can start working on an extension.
... This is for 1.x. We don't yet know what we're going to do
about ARIA 2.x.
... (Reads from document linked above)
... I don't know what will happen after the chartering.
... We may have one in development like ARIA 1.1, which is
maybe in draft form. We need to be sure it's published on the
TR list.
... (More reading from document)
... The ARIA group might want to incorporate some roles into
the main spec, like Chapter.
... The other thing that will be required is a REC-track
mapping specification.
... The important part is your extension cannot break ATs or
interfere with other mappings.
... Are there any concerns about this?
CS: I still need to write up the non-role-related extensions.
RS: We're going to present this
to the HTML Working Group tomorrow.
... I wouldn't worry too much about this now.
Janina: We want to formally adopt
this.
... This is version 1.0. We can always make a 1.1.
CS: My concern is that 2.0 is going to be done as a set of modules.
RS: If we have to tweak the process at some point, I don't think that's a problem.
Janina: And this is for ARIA 1.x.
CS: So you added the bit about it being for 1.x?
RS: Yes.
CS: I'll give it a quick read and send any concerns to the mailing list.
Janina: Should I wait for this call to complete for a CFC?
<richardschwerdtfeger> (hand-wave about versions and synchronization - TBD).
RS: There's a statement from Shane about "hand wave" (text above)
MC: What's to be determined is
how we implement that.
... Does the ARIA spec say how to make extensions
noramtive?
... Does the ARIA spec gets published with the extension
incorporated into it?
RS: I think that depends.
Janina: It already says you could
go either way with that.
... We don't have a mechanism on the engine end to implement
only parts of things.
CS: Not every browser is going to
do every extension.
... For instance, if DPUB becomes a recommendation, why would
browsers implement that?
... And it seems weird that failure to implement DPUB would
make you non-compliant.
RS: All DPUB readers are based on web engines.
CS: If someone does an extension spec for scientific equations, would that mean your browser is not compliant?
RS: Ah, no.
... You have to define a mapping, and have two
implementations.
... A host language might not implement a module.
... For instance I don't think SVG would implement DPUB.
MC: I do think the wording of
item 4 is problematic.
... I read it to mean conformance equals ARIA plus all
modules.
CS: Yes.
RS: Do you have suggested wording?
MC: I don't have a single
sentence.
... I think we need to make it clear that you can still conform
to ARIA core.
RS: Things that are not in ARIA core would be considered optional.
MC: We say all roles are normative.
CS: Conformance needs to be separate.
RS: That's what I mean by optional. Browsers don't have to implement it. But you need two implementations.
MC: What's not called out in this wording is if the extensions are in the REC track, their conformance is non-optional.
CS: ARIA DPUB, for example, should be optional with respect to conformance to ARIA core.
Janina: I think we'll be happiest if implementation of extensions is optional.
MC: We need to be sure to include
stakeholders.
... For instance, we'd be unhappy if longdesc were viewed as
extensions.
CS: I'm not worried about REC; I'm asking about my browser being compliant.
Janina: Since this is not hammered out, it's not ready for CFC.
RS: If the browser vendors don't implement the mappings, that's going to be a problem.
CS: The concern is the never-ending addition of new things to ARIA.
RS: Maybe I can word this
differently.
... I think what Cynthia is saying is I've got a project
schedule and now there's a new module.
CS: Right.
MC: And the ability to say IE is not a DPUB reader.
CS: If there were ARIA molecular
browser, I wouldn't expect everyone to implement it.
... We don't have molecular biology in the accessibility
APIs.
Janina: We may have lots of specialized extensions.
CS: I agree that a path for specialized applications is an important thing.
RS: So we need to tweak that bullet.
CS: Yes, I want to say compliance to each extension is a separate thing.
RS: I will figure out how to word this.
Janina: Maybe things that are prefixed are optional and non-prefixed items are required.
RS: So we're going to probably
need another round of this.
... I hope it won't take too long because DPUB is waiting for
this.
... Maybe we get what people agree to in this version.
CS: Maybe an editorial note regarding things we're still discussing.
RS: I'll note that on the bullet.
Janina: I think we're ready for
tomorrow's meeting.
... I've invited everyone from PF, DPUB, and HTML.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140 of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/at this/at TTML Text and Image Profiles for Internet Media Subtitles and Captions 1.0/ Succeeded: s/A11y group/Working Group/ Found Scribe: joanie Inferring ScribeNick: joanie Present: Janina Joanmarie_Diggs fesch Michael_Cooper JamesN Gottfried Rich_Schwerdtfeger Cynthia_Shelly Found Date: 20 May 2015 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/05/20-pf-minutes.html People with action items: janina[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]