can't be done. 17:14:19 mk: questions that 17:14:22 js: Not conformant 17:14:33 js: Unsure what browser might do 17:15:46 js: Believe browser would add rel value to the dom 17:16:00 mk: ARIA would have to define for it to be valid? 17:16:04 js: Or get mod from HTML 17:16:19 s/Unsure what browser might do/Likely browser will leave it in the DOM/ 17:16:29 jd: Or require it limited to anchor 17:16:31 no. 17:17:40 fe: Saw examples of link in body ... 17:18:27 fe: Ah, for linking to alternative formats, other lang versions, etc 17:20:11 js: Doubt "link" used in body would actually be rendered 17:20:28 http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/document-metadata.html#the-link-element 17:22:05 17:23:24 rs: We won't resolve this today ... 17:23:48 rs: Only reason to suggest ARIA-Destination at this time is for specialized Dpub roles 17:24:14 rs: To describe/identify the destination by type 17:25:16 rs: Example is identifying link goes to a glossary definition 17:26:06 mk: Can a sighted user distinguish these somehow? Are they styled differently? 17:26:09 rs: Yes 17:27:37 mk: Wondering aloud whether we already have something like this 17:27:55 mk: Help for the control 17:28:34 rs: Styling is supported so long as an attribute selector is available 17:30:02 q? 17:30:04 rs: We can't hold up ARIA-1.1 for Destinationq+ 17:30:06 ack clown 17:30:06 clown, you wanted to ask whose governance is rel/micorformats under? And which of our specs documents our @rel values? 17:30:33 js: Who controls the supported vocabulary? 17:30:37 http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#HTML5_link_type_extensions 17:30:50 present+ Michiel_Bijl 17:30:53 js: So we convince them of the values we want? 17:31:01 rs: No, we just tell them 17:32:10 js: I'm leary of needing to add our values to this wiki 17:32:21 q+ 17:34:18 mk: Concerned that Destination is attrib bloat 17:34:55 rs: Would like to resolve this soon 17:35:04 ack me 17:35:33 mc: Hearing much concern of how rel is extended in this conversation and note this is an old, much debated concern 17:35:47 mc: We may want to re-raise this with Web Platforms 17:36:51 rs: Noting we could develop this via Dpub module and add to ARIA core later, if this turns out to be preferred 17:36:59 topic Action-1361 17:37:04 actin-1361? 17:37:11 action-1361 17:37:11 action-1361 -- Matthew King to Suggest new text for the application role -- due 2015-06-11 -- OPEN 17:37:11 https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/actions/1361 17:37:19 action-1361? 17:37:19 action-1361 -- Matthew King to Suggest new text for the application role -- due 2015-06-11 -- OPEN 17:37:19 https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/actions/1361 17:37:26 1. Remove use of the word "application" from the definition of application. 17:37:28 2. Specify it is a section or structure. 17:37:29 3. Make clear that it is unnecessary for standard widgets to help avoid overuse. 17:37:31 4. Editorial improvements, e.g., remove redundant wording from the description. 17:38:07 mk: #3 most important to me 17:38:23 http://w3c.github.io/aria/aria/aria.html#application 17:38:24 mk: "Application" is much overused, even by AT 17:38:30 https://github.com/w3c/aria/commit/7593ebf36?diff=split 17:39:26 mk: Shouldn't need application role where everything in the region is a standard widget 17:39:39 q+ 17:40:13 http://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/mck_applicationRole/aria/aria.html#landmark 17:40:40 http://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/mck_applicationRole/aria/aria.html#application 17:43:15 q+ To ask if there really still is a need for the application role 17:44:17 Yes you need an application role when you make your own widget like a interactive chart widget and need the key events passed to you 17:44:29 [group discussing proposed revisions] 17:44:59 fesch: maybe widget should then not be abstract 17:45:43 joanie: well right now you have to use application... if widget worked... 17:45:53 jamesn has joined #aria 17:47:17 right now, you have to use application in order to get get events 17:47:47 even if you an application the browser won't give you every event like tab... 17:48:03 mk: Why application should be child of landmark? Suggest should be sibling of document 17:49:10 js: Believe what we have came from looking at portals and portlets 17:49:36 mk: So why document not landmark 17:49:51 rs: Because we use it top switch out of this application stuff 17:50:01 mk: But that goes both ways--suggest there's confusion here 17:50:22 mk: suggest putting "document" on body is redundent 17:50:38 s/redundent/redundant/ 17:52:06 mk: suggest 99% of application usage is useless, region would work as well 17:52:37 rs: Don't quite see the corelation 17:57:06 q+ 17:57:15 q- 17:57:54 q- 17:58:08 rs: Taking a straw poll ... 17:58:30 lw: Agrees with MK 17:59:03 jn: Would prefer a better way to do what we need to do 17:59:11 jn: Don't mind removing it from landmarks 17:59:31 rs: No objections to removing application from landmark? 18:00:19 mk: Will finish edits and see how it goes 18:00:39 mk: Are labels required 18:00:48 rs: Not for role=document 18:00:57 q+ for quick strawpoll q 18:01:00 rs: Any objections? 18:01:06 [crickets] 18:03:25 zakim, bye 18:03:25 leaving. As of this point the attendees have been Janina, Joanmarie_Diggs, fesch, Joseph_Scheuhammer, James_Nurthen, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, Bryan_Garaventa, MichaelC, Léonie_Watson, 18:03:25 Zakim has left #aria 18:03:26 ack j 18:03:28 ... Stefan_Schnabel, Matt_King, Michiel_Bijl 18:03:33 rrsagent, make minutes 18:03:33 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/10/15-aria-minutes.html janina 18:25:51 clown has joined #aria 19:01:39 mck_ has joined #aria 19:07:32 mck__ has joined #aria 19:13:13 joanie has joined #aria 19:37:53 clown has joined #aria 20:23:25 jongund has joined #aria 20:57:52 clown has left #aria