See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: JF
JS: waiting on others, but will
start
... overview of agenda
... any good news?
JS: error on web payment
scheduling
... when should we take up the next call?
SM: fine to meet next week
JS: will schedule that call then
JS: expecting to be quite busy at
TPAC - more details to follow
... remember that it is in Spetember, start collecting agenda
proposal ideas
... also, are there other groups we need/want to meet with
will be looking to firm this up by JUne/July
Action-2033
<trackbot> Action-2033 -- Shane McCarron to Review https://www.w3.org/tr/tracking-compliance/ tracking compliance and scope -- due 2016-05-04 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2033
SM: will need to investigate this - thought that the action had been closed/responded to
<MichaelC> action-2033 due 1 week
<trackbot> Set action-2033 Review https://www.w3.org/tr/tracking-compliance/ tracking compliance and scope due date to 2016-05-11.
Action-2032
<trackbot> Action-2032 -- Janina Sajka to Review https://www.w3.org/tr/mediastream-recording/ mediastream recording -- due 2016-05-04 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2032
JS: reviewed this, and did not
see any issues
... they explicetly mention capturing *all* media tracks (which
would include descr4ibed audio, P-in=P sign langugae, tec)
<MichaelC> close action-2032
<trackbot> Closed action-2032.
Action-2030
<trackbot> Action-2030 -- John Foliot to See if reporting api 1 https://www.w3.org/tr/reporting-1/ has applicability to a11y policy reporting -- due 2016-05-04 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2030
<MichaelC> action-2030 due 1 week
<trackbot> Set action-2030 See if reporting api 1 https://www.w3.org/tr/reporting-1/ has applicability to a11y policy reporting due date to 2016-05-11.
Action-2027
<trackbot> Action-2027 -- John Foliot to Solicit gregg vanderheiden review of secure contexts https://www.w3.org/tr/powerful-features/ -- due 2016-04-27 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2027
MC: multiple folks need to comment on this
ACTION-2023
<trackbot> ACTION-2023 -- Léonie Watson to John to ask Aaron for input on Pointer Lock https://www.w3.org/TR/pointerlock/ -- due 2016-04-14 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2023
<MichaelC> action-2023 due 2 weeks
<trackbot> Set action-2023 John to ask Aaron for input on Pointer Lock https://www.w3.org/TR/pointerlock/ due date to 2016-05-18.
JACtion-2022
Action-2022
<trackbot> Action-2022 -- Michael Cooper to Figure out what we previously did on annotation specs -- due 2016-04-13 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2022
MC: we need to review this spec still
SM: happy to take that on
<MichaelC> close action-2022
<trackbot> Closed action-2022.
Action-2021
<trackbot> Action-2021 -- Michael Cooper to Review css scrolll snap points module level 1 https://www.w3.org/tr/css-snappoints-1/. -- due 2016-04-06 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2021
MC: we looked at this about a
year ago - Janina had some concerns
... there may be a setting - we may ask to make this
global
... will right this up, but could not find the earlier
response
<MichaelC> close action-2021
<trackbot> Closed action-2021.
Action-2018
<trackbot> Action-2018 -- John Foliot to Get deque review of cooperative scheduling of background tasks https://www.w3.org/tr/requestidlecallback/ -- due 2016-04-27 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2018
<MichaelC> close action-2018
<trackbot> Closed action-2018.
JF: feedback was that this was interesting but not high value at this time
Action-2011
<trackbot> Action-2011 -- Janina Sajka to Janina to draft examples of how the hand-wavey stuff in CSS Transitions accessibility statement could be solidified -- due 2016-04-13 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2011
JS: forwarded this to Michiel, awaiting feedback
MC: re-assign?
JS: no leave with me
<MichaelC> CSS Scroll Snap Points Module Level 1
MC: we should create an action item
<MichaelC> ACTION: Janina to review https://www.w3.org/TR/css-snappoints-1/ CSS Scroll Snap Points Module Level 1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/05/04-apa-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2034 - Review https://www.w3.org/tr/css-snappoints-1/ css scroll snap points module level 1 [on Janina Sajka - due 2016-05-11].
MC: 3 web annotation specs
<MichaelC> Web Annotation Data Model
propose giving Shane a bulk action to review all 3
SM: there is no "there there" - there is no UI, so likely no impact
<MichaelC> Web Annotation Protocol
MC: likely true, but recall being nervous about this
<MichaelC> Web Annotation Vocabulary
JS: can image that, but it is likely how it is implemented in the UI
<MichaelC> ACTION: Shane to review https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/ Web Annotation Data Model, https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-protocol/ Web Annotation Protocol, https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-vocab/ Web Annotation Vocabulary [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/05/04-apa-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2035 - Review https://www.w3.org/tr/annotation-model/ web annotation data model, https://www.w3.org/tr/annotation-protocol/ web annotation protocol, https://www.w3.org/tr/annotation-vocab/ web annotation vocabulary [on Shane McCarron - due 2016-05-11].
JSi.e. how you know it is annotated, how you access it, etc.
SM: similar to noteref
issue
... SpecOps is builiding out the tests, but I've been looking
at this intensely
<MichaelC> action-2035?
<trackbot> action-2035 -- Shane McCarron to Review https://www.w3.org/tr/annotation-model/ web annotation data model, https://www.w3.org/tr/annotation-protocol/ web annotation protocol, https://www.w3.org/tr/annotation-vocab/ web annotation vocabulary -- due 2016-05-11 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2035
CS: there may be some cross-over with the ARIA stuff
MC: some WG Notes that we can likely skip over
<MichaelC> Digital Publishing and Accessibility in W3C Documents
MC: recollection is that it is documenting some accessibility requirements
<MichaelC> ACTION: janina to review https://www.w3.org/TR/dpub-accessibility/ Digital Publishing and Accessibility in W3C Documents [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/05/04-apa-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2036 - Review https://www.w3.org/tr/dpub-accessibility/ digital publishing and accessibility in w3c documents [on Janina Sajka - due 2016-05-11].
JS: interested in reading through this. Based on a question heard earlier this week. "Does W3C have best practices on..."
MC: Unicode in XML and other markup languages
<MichaelC> Unicode in XML and other Markup Languages
MC: some payment specs not looked at, but suspect the sub-team is looking at this
JS: this should be with the Product there
<MichaelC> Selection API
Joanie: I looked at this a long time ago - this may have changed since then, may need a second look
JS: agreed
<MichaelC> ACTION: joanie to re-review https://www.w3.org/TR/selection-api/ Selection API [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/05/04-apa-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2037 - Re-review https://www.w3.org/tr/selection-api/ selection api [on Joanmarie Diggs - due 2016-05-11].
FE: really, this is a low-level API, but wanders into areas with minor concrens
Section 5, the usage of images in authrentication, etc.
FE: but we should continue to
monitor this
... believe this may also be of interest to COGA
<Zakim> joanie, you wanted to mention relation to custom passwords fields (sorry to say the 'p' word again) ;)
there is a non-normative example around a chooser - have notified Lisa S that there may be a COGA issue here
Joanie: notes that the locked icon in the browsaer address bar is not being exposed to AT
this surfaced in the APA password role discussion
there is nothing today that is related to this.
JS: this seems to be a piece of the larger discussion around updating authentication
do our APIs have a role to play there? - i.e. when the lock is present, taht the ATs report that somehow (perhaps a different voice)
CS; in the browsser UI, that icon is an image with an alt text. When the state changes that is announced
JS: that may be enough, or we may
consider asking more
... in terms of what to do next... agree that we should
probably revisit this
MC: we can mark it in the wiki as deferred, and we can set a due date of 6 months down the road [sic]
SM: web payments actually don't extend to this
<Zakim> joanie, you wanted to ask if we need a mechanism to spin off small AAMs on specs like this
joanie: sounds like an area where we may need to have a "mini" AAM spec
something that defines the credentialling API - if we agree that we need this, then "how" is the next question
MC: we don't have a formal mechansim to do that, although we are doing this today informally - this was anticipated inthe chartering
Joanie: concern about waiting 6 months, and arriving then with nothing. Suggest we start the discussion sooner rather than later
MC: agree that we should start working on this then
perhaps we need to look at time-frames
JS: this may be a TPAC discussion (since TPAC is less than 6 months from now)
<joanie> +1 for TPAC agenda item
JS: suspect taht authentication will be a larger discussion topic at TPAC
FE: perhaps we should be asking for an "AAM" section in *their* spec
CS: perhaps just make it a pull request. (we provide the editorial, but they own the final output)
MC: if we get to the point of specifying mapping, then we should have a larger discussion on strategic methodology
however, it sounds here that we want to get started sooner rather than later
JS: sounds like a couple of action items here
FE: thinks they need to be aware of it - there are only SHOULDS in there, as some things are still missing
JS: outside of discussing this with Lisa, should we establish a stub in the ARIA work
need to discuss with Rich first
<MichaelC> ACTION: Fred to raise [https://www.w3.org/TR/credential-management-1/ Credential Management Level 1] for re-review - due 6 months [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/05/04-apa-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> 'Fred' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., fesch, fredvogel).
<MichaelC> ACTION: esch to raise [https://www.w3.org/TR/credential-management-1/ Credential Management Level 1] for re-review - due 6 months [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/05/04-apa-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2038 - Raise [https://www.w3.org/tr/credential-management-1/ credential management level 1] for re-review [on Fred Esch - due 2016-11-04].
<MichaelC> action-2038?
<trackbot> action-2038 -- Fred Esch to Raise [https://www.w3.org/tr/credential-management-1/ credential management level 1] for re-review -- due 2016-11-04 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2038
<MichaelC> close action-2031
<trackbot> Closed action-2031.
[meta discussion on methodology - all part of a larger authenticaiton discussion]
JS: we will continue to coordinate on this as timeline progresses
JS: this is aholder, but not much
to discuss today due to missing participants on call
... notes that there is a lot of hand-waving - want more
specificity
... what is our stance/position on Flex Box?
... should likey request a status update on CS WG
JS: noted that there were some comments from Chaals on this
<chaals> [In regards to resurrecting HTML H1-H6, we are *keeping* them, as they have always been. We have removed the suggestion to use the outline algorithm, and nested section elements with h1 everywhere as if it was automatically assigned the right level. Because it isn't.]
<chaals> [People have suggested resurrecting the h element as one that gets its level from running the document outline algorithm. That suggestion should be followed up in the WICG incubator to get some traction with implementation first. In particular, it needs to explain the story for getting the right level information to the accessibility API - which was a fatal problem for the nested section/h1 approach]
question around outline algorithm
SM: have a comment/question - thinks there is a mis-statment there, perhaps we should ask for clarrification
JS: the magic nesting thing is proposed as being removed from HTML5.1, and moved to the WICG for additional work
MC: sad to see this die off - the HTML AAM does not speak to thisnow
CS: it does not, and from an implementation perspective this is not easy
JS: notes that this is not dead
yet, but that there are issues - which is why it has been moved
to the CG for now
... if dPub wants to see this move forward, they should be
pointed there
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144 of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/Yes, we're not expecting her for another couple weeks. I'll convey, as I believe we're not yet recording for minutes.// Succeeded: s/OK, Rich, thanks!// Succeeded: s/shold/should/ Succeeded: s/th emagic/the magic/ Found Scribe: JF Inferring ScribeNick: JF Present: Joanmarie_Diggs ShaneM Janina JF MichaelC Rich_Schwerdtfeger Regrets: Leonie Michiel Found Date: 04 May 2016 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/05/04-apa-minutes.html People with action items: esch fred janina joanie shane WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]