16:28:39 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #aria
16:28:39 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/06/09-aria-irc
16:28:41 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
16:28:41 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #aria
16:28:43 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
16:28:43 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
16:28:44 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessible Rich Internet Applications Working Group Teleconference
16:28:45 <trackbot> Date: 09 June 2016
16:28:59 <MichaelC> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2016Jun/0047.html
16:29:03 <MichaelC> chair: MichaelC
16:29:18 <MichaelC> regrets: Rich, Léonie, Michiel
16:30:49 <MichaelC> agenda+ Decisions from last week
16:30:49 <MichaelC> agenda+ ACTION-2039 Update definition of aria-autocomplete
16:30:49 <MichaelC> agenda+ Treeitem, option re children presentational
16:30:49 <MichaelC> agenda+ ACTION-2079 and ACTION-2080 Draft ¨host language should¨ language for password
16:30:49 <MichaelC> agenda+ ACTION-2081 Draft wording for editorial note on password
16:30:50 <MichaelC> agenda+ ACTION-2067 Write text to state the order of aria-owns ids
16:30:51 <MichaelC> agenda+ Other open issues and actions
16:30:53 <MichaelC> agenda+ Approval to publish ARIA 1.1 Working Draft?
16:30:55 <MichaelC> agenda+ AOB
16:31:47 <jemmaKu> jemmaKu has joined #aria
16:32:30 <joanie> present+ Joanmarie_Diggs
16:32:41 <fesch> fesch has joined #aria
16:32:44 <fesch> present+ fesch
16:32:51 <MichaelC> present+ MichaelC, Jemma, Cynthia, JF
16:32:54 <jemmaKu> present+ JaEunJemmaKu
16:33:07 <JF> JF has joined #aria
16:33:15 <JF> present+ JF
16:33:56 <MichaelC> agenda+ testing
16:34:08 <MichaelC> present+ Matt
16:34:18 <clown> clown has joined #aria
16:34:20 <jemmaKu> rrsagent make log world
16:35:56 <MichaelC> present+ Joseph
16:36:27 <cyns> cyns has joined #aria
16:37:26 <clown> scribenick:  clown
16:37:32 <MichaelC> agenda?
16:38:17 <MichaelC> agenda order 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10
16:38:27 <clown> take up item 1
16:38:28 <MichaelC> zakim, next item
16:38:30 <Zakim> agendum 1 was just opened, MichaelC
16:38:30 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #aria
16:39:07 <MichaelC> present+ JamesN
16:39:45 <clown> MC:  It's up to Rich to send the formal decisions
16:39:55 <clown> MC: <looks up what they were>
16:40:03 <clown> MC: I think they all passed.
16:40:30 <clown> MC:  Warning for password was amended via MichielBijl.
16:40:33 <clown> MC:  Any concerns?
16:40:57 <clown> JF:  No.  to-may-to to-mah-to.
16:41:17 <clown> JF:  I think the original felt strongly, but the new text is more of a friendly reminder.
16:41:31 <clown> s/felt strongly/felt stronger/
16:41:44 <clown> MC:  If you want to keep the original text, say so.
16:42:06 <jemmaKu> is this original draft? "Warning: the password role does not convey or apply any of the security or privacy considerations found in native password fields. Authors are responsible for making sure that custom password fields have robust security and privacy protection, as befits their use."
16:42:16 <clown> JF:  Well, I wrote the originall text.  I want authors to understand there are serious restrictions in terms of using it.
16:42:31 <clown> JF:  I prefer the stronger wording.
16:42:38 <clown> MC:  I do too.
16:42:51 <clown> JK:  I can second that.
16:43:05 <clown> MC:  There is a general preference for the original wording.
16:43:14 <MichaelC> present+ Bryan
16:43:28 <clown> MC:  the second CfC was on aria-keyshortcuts.
16:43:44 <clown> MC:  Joseph made some non-normative editorial changes.
16:43:55 <clown> MK:  I'm generally okay.
16:44:06 <clown> MK:  I have a few small modifications.
16:44:08 <bgaraventa1979> bgaraventa1979 has joined #aria
16:44:23 <clown> MC:  Go ahead an make the mods and then notify Joanie.
16:44:31 <bgaraventa1979> present+ Bryan_Garaventa
16:44:34 <clown> MK:  Will do, but I will have to look for them.
16:44:40 <joanie> q+ To seek clarification on when to merge
16:44:46 <MichaelC> ack j
16:44:46 <Zakim> joanie, you wanted to seek clarification on when to merge
16:44:51 <clown> MC:  You can ask Joseph or Joanie.
16:45:06 <clown> JD:  If I know where the changes are, I can make them.
16:45:30 <clown> MC:  As for doing the merge, it's triggered when Rich makes the formal recommendation.
16:45:45 <clown> JD:  It's not clear if it's blessed by virtue of this meeting.
16:46:04 <mck> mck has joined #aria
16:46:05 <clown> MC:  It is up to Rich, and I will contact him to make his blessing.
16:46:21 <JF> s/serious restrictions in terms/serious limitations in terms
16:46:48 <clown> MC:  Last one about the implicit/explicit roles.
16:47:01 <clown> MC:  There was not discussion, so I assume everyone is okay with it.
16:47:16 <clown> s/There was not discussion/There was no discussion/
16:47:33 <clown> MC: So, I will notify Rich about that as well.
16:47:45 <cyns> cyns has joined #aria
16:48:09 <clown> MC, JD, MK:  <discussion on mechanics of github and merging>
16:48:25 <clown> zakim, next item
16:48:25 <Zakim> agendum 2. "ACTION-2039 Update definition of aria-autocomplete" taken up [from MichaelC]
16:48:34 <clown> action-2039
16:48:34 <trackbot> action-2039 -- Matthew King to Update definition of aria-autocomplete -- due 2016-03-17 -- PENDINGREVIEW
16:48:34 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/track/actions/2039
16:48:47 <cyns> cyns has joined #aria
16:48:47 <MichaelC> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2016Jun/0058.html
16:48:54 <clown> MC: Matt, you sent some notes around about it.
16:49:04 <clown> MK: I sent to the list a summary of what I've done.
16:49:04 <mck> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2016Jun/0058.html
16:49:16 <clown> MK:  I can walk through it.
16:49:39 <clown> MK:  This update compared to last week has eight changes.
16:49:44 <mck> http://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/action2039-autocomplete/aria/aria.html#aria-autocomplete
16:49:54 <MichaelC> changes: https://github.com/w3c/aria/compare/action2039-autocomplete
16:50:01 <Stefan> Stefan has joined #aria
16:50:32 <clown> MK:  In that branch, the way it was written suggested that regardless of what a user types, automatic predicitions will appear.
16:50:49 <clown> MK: But that only happens only if the app recognizes the input and can make a prediction.
16:51:02 <clown> MK:  I modified the definition to indicate that.
16:51:16 <clown> MK:  That's in the first paragraph.
16:51:45 <mck> the inline model (aria-autocomplete="inline") that presents a value completion prediction inside the text input
16:51:52 <clown> MK: In the second paragraph, I changed it to say "value completion prediciton".
16:52:15 <clown> MK:  Focussing on the idea autocomplete is all about predictions.
16:52:55 <clown> MK:  In the third paragraph, second sentence used to imply an authoring requirement in a negative manner, and not normative.
16:53:04 <mck> Authors SHOULD either omit specifying a value for aria-autocomplete or set aria-autocomplete to none if an input element provides one or more input proposals where none of the proposals are dependent on the specific input provided by the user.
16:53:10 <clown> MK:  I changed it to a postive SHOULD statement. (see above).
16:53:20 <MichaelC> last week´s discussion on aria-autocomplete https://www.w3.org/2016/06/02-aria-minutes.html#item02
16:53:21 <cyns> cyns has joined #aria
16:53:44 <clown> MC:  The main thing we want to do is if people have concerns with your edits.
16:53:54 <clown> MK:  I will try to summarize quicker.
16:54:22 <clown> MK:  I removed the word "state' from "selected state" and went back to something similar to the original language.
16:54:32 <clown> MK:  <describes other changes>
16:54:53 <clown> MK: I added the word "MAY" in the value definitions.
16:54:58 <clown> MC:  Any comments?
16:55:13 <clown> JD:  Thank you for clarifying the state thing.
16:55:40 <clown> MC:  The hope is to approve this.  Any objections to accepting this branch as proposed?
16:55:48 <JF> +1 to accepting
16:56:08 <clown> MC:  Let's make a resolution.
16:56:26 <clown> RESOLUTION:  Accept action-2039 as proposed.
16:56:38 <clown> zakim, next item
16:56:38 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Treeitem, option re children presentational" taken up [from MichaelC]
16:56:55 <clown> MC:  We talked about this last week, but got stuck
16:57:12 <Stefan> Stefan has joined #aria
16:57:13 <MichaelC> Last week on children presentational https://www.w3.org/2016/06/02-aria-minutes.html#item03
16:57:31 <clown> MK:  We had  resolution three weeks ago, it went out to CfC and was approved, but there was another thread questioning it.
16:57:48 <clown> MK:  The person we thought would not agree was Stefan.
16:58:00 <clown> MC:  I was supposed to contact him, but I did not.
16:58:05 <clown> MC:  He is here today, though.
16:58:44 <clown> MC:  Stefan, we wanted to check with you about treeitem and children.
16:58:52 <MichaelC> present+ Stefan
16:58:59 <clown> MK:  We had an approved CfC, but you and others had some problems.
16:59:23 <clown> MK:  We don't have from you if the mailing list discussion is okay.
16:59:43 <clown> MK:  This is in regards children-are-presentational for treeitem.
17:00:06 <clown> SS: I said there could be more complex treeitems that contain interactive content.
17:00:13 <clown> SS:  Also in lists.
17:00:49 <clown> MK: The CfC included it on other roles where ATs can't handle internal interactive content.
17:01:04 <clown> SS:  I can't vote against it, but in reality these things happen.
17:01:24 <fesch> q+
17:01:25 <clown> SS:  It's a bad idea that ARIA 1.1 does not cover it yet.
17:01:57 <clown> SS:  Also, we cannot rely cross platform screen reader support.
17:02:17 <clown> MK: Whether we change it in the spec or not does not affect AT behaviour now.
17:02:17 <joanie> q+ To question the "nothing will change"
17:02:23 <clown> MK:  Same with browsers.
17:02:49 <clown> MK: If you put interactive children inside these roles, it won't work, unless you use some tricks.
17:03:17 <MichaelC> q+ Stefan
17:03:21 <MichaelC> ack f
17:03:23 <clown> MK: But those tricks are not recommended by authoring practices.
17:03:38 <clown> FE: Originally Rich, James, and I were against this.
17:03:48 <clown> FE:  But, we are willing to put this off to ARIA 2.0
17:03:53 <clown> SS:  I'm okay with that.
17:04:17 <clown> SS:  But, Rich is in the same boat as me?
17:04:25 <clown> FE:  Yes, as well as James.
17:04:25 <MichaelC> ack j
17:04:25 <Zakim> joanie, you wanted to question the "nothing will change"
17:04:34 <clown> JD:  I'm sort of in the same boat.
17:04:44 <clown> JD:  With resepect to spinbutton.
17:05:02 <clown> JD:  Doesn't that mean the UAs do not expose the children?
17:05:16 <clown> JD:  Right now the up/down buttons are actually exposed.
17:05:22 <clown> JD:  I think things will change.
17:05:44 <MichaelC> q+ Bryan
17:05:54 <MichaelC> ack s
17:06:08 <clown> SS: I just want to point out that I do not care that much about treeitems with links inside.
17:06:43 <clown> SS:  But, we have frequently in our UIs are listitem containers with interactive content inside a listitem.
17:06:51 <clown> SS: And, we need to cover this.
17:07:02 <clown> MK:  That one, we have a robust solution.
17:07:18 <clown> MK:  That's why we added layout grids to ARIA 1.1.
17:07:31 <jamesn> q+ to say it is not a grid visually.....
17:07:39 <clown> SS:  Also, with position information — on item 5 of 8 — we need to see if the layout grid covers this.
17:07:44 <clown> MK:  It does.
17:07:46 <MichaelC> ack b
17:07:49 <MichaelC> q+
17:08:09 <clown> BG:  The underlying reason is to shore up the difference between composite and non-composite widgets.
17:08:22 <clown> BG:  Tree items have never been composite.
17:08:34 <clown> BG:  Composite means that it supports interactive child elements.
17:08:57 <clown> BG:  User agents do no expose the child elements in composite widgets.
17:09:09 <clown> BG:  To make them composite requires a much larger spec change.
17:09:32 <MichaelC> ack j
17:09:32 <Zakim> jamesn, you wanted to say it is not a grid visually.....
17:09:36 <clown> BG: This can be part of 2.0, but we need to make clear in 1.1 that these are not composite widgets.
17:09:53 <joanie> q+ To ask why not make a spinbutton composite then, because that's how it's implemented already
17:10:00 <clown> JN:  I'm always worried when someone says that something that is thought of as a list is actually a grid.
17:10:21 <clown> JN: It concerns me that different users have a different experience.
17:10:24 <JF> +1 to JamesN
17:10:31 <clown> JN: It might lead to a wcag error.
17:10:57 <clown> MK:  I have answer to all your points, but that discussion belongs to authoring practices.
17:11:07 <clown> JN:  We have those problems in our organization.
17:11:35 <clown> BG:  A lot of the problem comes down to what it looks like and what it is semantically.
17:11:42 <clown> BG:  They don't have to be the same.
17:11:47 <Stefan> +q
17:11:52 <clown> BG:  As long as they are accessible.
17:12:10 <joanie> q-
17:12:11 <joanie> q+
17:12:15 <MichaelC> ack me
17:12:20 <clown> BG:  It's when they look as if they behave a way, but don't, that's a huge problem.
17:12:35 <clown> MC:  I get the feeling that we do not have consensus.
17:12:51 <clown> MC:  It has gone from "I can live with this" to stronger objections.
17:13:15 <clown> MC:  Is there something we can agree on that it necessary and sufficient in ARIA 1.1?
17:13:40 <clown> MC:  Try to find consensus around that within the next 15 min; otherwise, keep this issue open.
17:13:40 <MichaelC> ack m
17:13:51 <clown> BG:  What is a non-composite widget?  That is the issue.
17:14:16 <clown> MC:  A widget is that not composite.  A composite is one that consists of other widgets.
17:14:27 <clown> MC:  It might also might have structure.
17:14:37 <clown> MK: Composite has focusable children.
17:14:50 <clown> MK:  The children's semantics are revealed to AT>
17:15:23 <clown> MK:  My primary concern is if we do not make the spec consistent with how we have mapped to host languages.
17:15:39 <clown> MK:  E.g <option> is not allowed to contain things.
17:16:01 <clown> MK:  As soon you break that so that 'option' can have more than one meaning — it create serious problems.
17:16:17 <MichaelC> q+
17:16:26 <clown> MK:  An advantage of the CfC is that it allows conformance tools to alert authors.
17:16:34 <MichaelC> ack s
17:16:47 <clown> SS: I don't say to hijack options of listitems.
17:17:04 <clown> SS:  I just want a new role or mechanism to handle the "complex" listitems.
17:17:19 <clown> SS:  Also, I agree with James that using grid for lists is confusing.
17:17:40 <MichaelC> q+ to mention user vs author disconnect?
17:17:49 <clown> SS: It should not be called a grid by JAWS.  We need a new semantic.
17:17:55 <MichaelC> q+ to ask priority of 1.1 vs 2.0
17:18:11 <clown> MK:  JAWS already calls these things grids.
17:18:27 <clown> SS:  But a grid has editable cells and data bound content.
17:18:44 <clown> SS:  But the things I have in mind — text, links, buttons — they don't have that semantic.
17:18:56 <clown> SS:  This needs more discussion.
17:19:17 <clown> BG:  We do need to distinguish between listitem and option.  They are different things.
17:19:31 <clown> BG:  Listitem does allow children, but option doesn't
17:19:45 <clown> BG: Listime maps to <li> and option to <option>
17:19:46 <MichaelC> q+ to propose ednote
17:19:47 <MichaelC> ack j
17:19:49 <joanie> https://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/Source/WebCore/accessibility/AccessibilitySpinButton.cpp#L81
17:20:04 <clown> JD:  Here is a link as what already happens in webkit (see above).
17:20:35 <Stefan> +q
17:20:42 <clown> JD:  There is code that explicitly exposes the children of a spinbutton.
17:20:42 <MichaelC> q- later
17:20:59 <clown> JD:  If we make this change in the spec, then we are saying webkit is doing the wrong thing.
17:21:07 <clown> JD:  Same as on my platform.
17:21:24 <clown> JD:  It could be that JAWS doesn't tell you they are there.
17:21:40 <clown> BG:  I understand that, but the spec says it is not a composite widget.
17:21:58 <clown> BG:  How much are we putting on the user agent by such a change?
17:22:14 <MichaelC> ack s
17:22:32 <clown> SS: The children need not be reached because they are not keyboard focusable.
17:22:58 <clown> SS:  If there are keystrokes that invokes their function, it doesn't need focus.
17:23:19 <MichaelC> ack me
17:23:19 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to mention user vs author disconnect? and to ask priority of 1.1 vs 2.0 and to propose ednote
17:23:21 <clown> SS:  The question is what do screen readers do when they encounter these inner pieces.
17:23:30 <clown> MC:  I think we do not have consensus.
17:23:47 <clown> MC:  There might be different understanding between users and authors.
17:23:58 <clown> MC:  We need to do more education.
17:24:34 <clown> MC: I'm still trying to find a way to go ahead with pseudo last call draft with no one uncomfortable with what's in it.
17:24:45 <clown> MK:  There were eight roles in the CfC.
17:24:59 <clown> MK: You can go forward with five of them.
17:25:12 <clown> MC:  How about an editorial note on the remaining three?
17:25:37 <clown> MC:  This is meant to be a "last all working draft", and that can be changed.
17:25:53 <clown> MC:  Especially with an editorial note that flags that things may change.
17:26:05 <clown> MC:  Is that acceptable?
17:26:18 <clown> MC:  And maybe a wiki page?
17:26:32 <joanie> q+ To say that I'm ok with it if MichaelC puts an explicit statement in the "We especially want feedback on" section
17:26:35 <clown> BG:  If we make role option composite, it is going to break listboxes.
17:26:47 <clown> MK:  I'm comfortable with an editorial note.
17:27:00 <jemmaKu> I agree with Michale's suggestion - recording all the different opinioins and keep track of those discussion
17:27:09 <clown> MC: I'm not proposing making option composite.  That's too big a change.
17:27:12 <MichaelC> ack j
17:27:12 <Zakim> joanie, you wanted to say that I'm ok with it if MichaelC puts an explicit statement in the "We especially want feedback on" section
17:27:25 <clown> JD:  Basically what I typed above is it.
17:27:37 <clown> JD:  Add that we want feedback on these editorial notes.
17:27:51 <clown> MC:  Yes, I would do that.
17:28:01 <clown> MC:  Is that acceptable — the editorial notes?
17:28:11 <jemmaKu> I can live with "editorial notes"
17:28:15 <clown> +1
17:28:17 <mck> +1
17:28:20 <joanie> +1
17:28:22 <fesch> +1
17:28:24 <jemmaKu> +1
17:28:51 <jamesn> option, treeitem, spinbutton
17:28:53 <clown> MC:  what are the three rols?
17:29:13 <clown> BG, MK:  option, treeitem ,and spinbutton
17:29:39 <clown> SS:  I'm not against this definition for ARIA 1.1.  That's okay.
17:29:46 <clown> SS:  We need to address this in 2.0
17:30:02 <clown> MC:  I think there is a 2.0 issue in tracker.
17:30:55 <clown> proposed:  Add edtiorial note to option, treeitem, and spinbutton roles that their children are presentational is provisional
17:31:32 <clown> RESOLUTION Add edtiorial note to option, treeitem, and spinbutton roles that their "children are presentational" status is provisional
17:31:39 <clown> RESOLUTION: Add edtiorial note to option, treeitem, and spinbutton roles that their "children are presentational" status is provisional
17:31:58 <clown> s/edtiorial/editorial/
17:32:24 <clown> MC:  I can't find a 2.0 issue.  Can Matt or Stefan file one?
17:32:32 <clown> MK:  I can...
17:33:24 <clown> MC:  Do roles like spinbutton be composite?
17:33:32 <clown> MK:  That's one issue…
17:33:58 <clown> MK:  Another is whether certain roles support interactive children.
17:34:10 <MichaelC> rrsagent, make minutes
17:34:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/09-aria-minutes.html MichaelC
17:34:26 <clown> zakim, next item
17:34:26 <Zakim> agendum 4. "ACTION-2079 and ACTION-2080 Draft ¨host language should¨ language for password" taken up [from MichaelC]
17:34:43 <joanie> q+
17:34:47 <clown> MC:  Somehow both Joanie and I got similar actions.
17:34:55 <MichaelC> ack j
17:35:00 <clown> MC:  I will rescind mine in favour of Joanie's
17:35:14 <clown> JD:  My understanding of how we got duplicate actions.
17:35:36 <clown> JD:  We need to make to make sure to not have authors to put the role where is does not belong.
17:35:59 <clown> JD:  And we need to make the statement that it is strong, so you can't override it.
17:36:05 <clown> MC:  Do we need both actions?
17:36:12 <clown> JD:  Maybe.
17:36:26 <JF> Q+
17:36:36 <clown> MC:  There was feed back on my action that it needs larger scope.
17:36:47 <clown> MC:  Joanie has a proposal.
17:36:48 <JF> ack JF
17:36:53 <joanie> https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/track/actions/2080
17:36:54 <MichaelC> Proposal: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2016Jun/0050.html
17:37:00 <clown> action-2080
17:37:00 <trackbot> action-2080 -- Joanmarie Diggs to Draft aria spec text limiting the use of role password on editable objects -- due 2016-06-09 -- OPEN
17:37:00 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/track/actions/2080
17:37:09 <clown> JD:  Here is my proposal:
17:37:22 <joanie> Authors SHOULD limit the use of the password role to single-line
17:37:22 <joanie> elements which are editable. Authors MAY use the password role on
17:37:22 <joanie> elements which are not currently editable due to application-specific
17:37:22 <joanie> conditions. However, in that instance, authors MUST indicate that the
17:37:23 <joanie> element is read only by setting aria-readonly to true or using the
17:37:25 <joanie> appropriate native host language attribute. User agents MUST ignore the
17:37:27 <joanie> password role when it is applied to elements which are neither editable
17:37:30 <joanie> nor explicitly marked as read only.
17:38:19 <jemmaKu> +1
17:38:31 <clown> JD:  Rich asked what the use case for a read-only password.
17:39:01 <clown> JD:  An admin dialog to reset the password, when the user is not an admin.
17:39:12 <JF> if the private +1 came from me, it was intended to be public
17:39:16 <clown> JD:  James suggested a mutli-line password (?)
17:39:40 <clown> JD:  I don't think that's a real password but in any case, it is a SHOULD, not a MUST.
17:39:47 <clown> MC:  I support Joanies text.
17:39:49 <clown> +1
17:39:55 <fesch> +1
17:40:05 <JF> +1
17:40:07 <clown> JF:  I sent a private +1 to Joanie.  Now it is public
17:40:10 <jamesn> +1
17:40:35 <clown> RESOLUTION:  Accept Joanie's proposal on action2080
17:40:48 <clown> MC:  Now let's address my action
17:40:53 <clown> action-2079
17:40:53 <trackbot> action-2079 -- Michael Cooper to Draft ¨host language should¨ language for password that they should restrict elements it can apply to, with input from minutes of 2 june 2016 meeting -- due 2016-06-09 -- OPEN
17:40:53 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/track/actions/2079
17:41:01 <MichaelC> Proposal: https://github.com/w3c/aria/compare/master...ACTION-2079
17:41:17 <clown> MC:  <Reads his changes>
17:41:45 <MichaelC> Using the <code>password</code> role on elements that would not accept passwords could create a security risk in conforming user agents, prompting users to enter a password in an inappropriate place where it could be accidentally exposed. Therefore, host languages SHOULD restrict use of the <code>password</code> role to elements that accept text input from users, and only when within a form submission context.
17:41:59 <clown> MC:  There were some comments
17:42:21 <clown> MC: John suggested some edits.
17:42:34 <clown> MC:  James did not support the submission form context.
17:42:36 <joanie> q+ To say that the "form" issue was discussed during previous meeting
17:42:48 <clown> MC: Joanie agreed with James, as did Rich (?)
17:43:05 <clown> s/submission form context/form submission context/
17:43:26 <clown> MC:  James pointed out there is no such restriction on input type="password"
17:43:35 <clown> MC:  John, you don't agree?
17:43:49 <clown> JF:  I'm not overly concerned with that.
17:43:58 <fesch> q+
17:44:04 <clown> JF:  I think if it outside of a form is a strange thing.
17:44:15 <clown> JF:  It kind of feels like a fishing attack.
17:44:16 <jamesn> q+
17:44:21 <clown> s/fishing/phishing/
17:44:41 <joanie> q-
17:44:47 <clown> CS:  A lot of developers don't use forms anymore.  They use scripts for submission.
17:45:03 <MichaelC> ack fe
17:45:06 <clown> JF:  I'm just trying to keep this in check, but if everyone feels this way, I won't fight for it.
17:45:26 <MichaelC> ack j
17:45:35 <clown> FE:  Stuff in things like Angular.js, don't re	quire a form submission.
17:45:44 <clown> JN:  Exactly.
17:45:56 <clown> JF:  I'm not going to die on this hill.  I don't care.
17:46:12 <clown> MC:  I think there is consensus here then, so remove the form clause.
17:46:21 <joanie> q+
17:46:39 <MichaelC> ack j
17:46:49 <clown> JD: I don't have big problems with your statement, but yours is not quite in sync with mine.
17:47:10 <clown> JD:  I'm suggesting host language restrictions, but yours are stronger.
17:47:20 <clown> MC:  Likely mine needs changes.
17:47:39 <clown> JD:  Your's is "host languages need to declare ?"
17:47:40 <JF> Q+
17:48:05 <clown> MC:  So, something like "should restrict password role to…"
17:48:19 <clown> JF:  There is only so much we can impose on a host language.
17:49:14 <clown> JF:  There are instance where authors are creating a form-type element, where the role tells AT to echo back the rendered text.
17:49:27 <clown> JF:  By definition, it works for something that accepts text input.
17:49:36 <clown> JF:  Which isn't a radio button, for example.
17:49:51 <clown> MC:  I think the two texts are actually complementary.
17:50:05 <clown> JD:  Maybe Michael's action needs another week.
17:50:18 <clown> JF:  We need a composite submission.
17:50:49 <clown> JD: Michael's action is that html-aam makes a specific statement about input type password.
17:51:07 <clown> MC:  My action is providing a hook for that.
17:51:28 <clown> MC:  It's weird to have a host language restriction in aria
17:51:55 <clown> JF:  The host language we are talking about is HTML
17:52:00 <clown> JF:  What other language?
17:52:04 <clown> MC, JD:  SVG
17:52:23 <clown> JF: But, SVG doesn't really have a form input type thingy.
17:52:35 <clown> MC:  That was projected to change, but I may be wrong about that.
17:52:57 <clown> FE:  I don't know of any content editable elements in SVG.
17:53:23 <clown> MC:  Even if html is the only host language that matters, I want my text to be more general.
17:53:51 <clown> MC:  I'm not sure if you action item covers it Joanie
17:54:11 <clown> MC:  Could we just add a sentence to what you just read Joanie?
17:54:14 <clown> JD:  Sure.
17:54:24 <clown> JD:  Feel free to add it to my branch.
17:54:36 <clown> MC:  Let me write the sentence here.
17:55:08 <MichaelC> proposed for end of ACTION-2080 proposal: Host languages SHOULD document that the password role can only be used on elements that have these characteristics.
17:55:44 <MichaelC> proposed for end of ACTION-2080 proposal: Host languages SHOULD document that the password role can only be used on elements that are editable and not read only..
17:55:56 <joanie> +1
17:55:59 <clown> +1
17:56:03 <JF> +1
17:56:18 <clown> FE:  we might want to say "not permantly read only"
17:56:28 <clown> FE:  Joanie pointed out that it might be toggled.
17:56:29 <MichaelC> proposed for end of ACTION-2080 proposal: Host languages SHOULD document that the password role can only be used on elements that are editable and not permanently read only.
17:56:42 <clown> JN:  I hate to bring this up, but...
17:57:14 <clown> JN:  Isn't that the obscuring the password text is toggled, but it doesn't change the role.
17:57:34 <clown> CS:  There used to be CSS rules for Webkit that could do such toggling.
17:57:56 <clown> CS:  Windows show the plain text for a brief period, but then obsures it.
17:58:15 <clown> JN:  The way it is written is the screen reader will read what is on screen.
17:58:29 <clown> JD:  That is what is in the spec.
17:58:38 <clown> JN: How does that work in Cynthia's case?
17:58:56 <clown> CS:  I think the screen reader does something different than the visual experience.
17:59:07 <MichaelC> close action-2079
17:59:07 <trackbot> Closed action-2079.
17:59:12 <clown> MC:  We have a friendly amendment.  Any objections?
17:59:25 <clown> zakim, next item
17:59:25 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, clown
17:59:33 <fesch> q_
17:59:34 <clown> q?
17:59:39 <clown> ack JF
17:59:45 <clown> zakim, next item
17:59:45 <Zakim> agendum 5. "ACTION-2081 Draft wording for editorial note on password" taken up [from MichaelC]
17:59:51 <clown> zakim, next item
17:59:51 <Zakim> agendum 5 was just opened, clown
18:00:08 <clown> zakim, close item
18:00:08 <Zakim> I don't understand 'close item', clown
18:00:24 <clown> zakim, next item
18:00:24 <Zakim> agendum 5 was just opened, clown
18:00:34 <ShaneM> zakim, close item 5
18:00:34 <Zakim> agendum 5, ACTION-2081 Draft wording for editorial note on password, closed
18:00:36 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
18:00:36 <Zakim> 6. ACTION-2067 Write text to state the order of aria-owns ids [from MichaelC]
18:00:55 <MichaelC> agenda?
18:00:58 <clown> JN:  I have not done this.  I have to re-read the comments I got.
18:00:59 <MichaelC> zakim, take up item 10
18:00:59 <Zakim> agendum 10. "testing" taken up [from MichaelC]
18:01:11 <clown> CS:  Where does testing get discussed, Michael?
18:01:33 <clown> MC:  Jon has sent up a sub group, but he hasn't got back to me.
18:01:40 <clown> MC:  There is a mailing list as well.
18:01:54 <clown> CS:  My guess is we will be working on github, but I'm not sure.
18:02:09 <clown> MC:  We may want to split the tests out of the aria repo and into a test repo.
18:02:15 <clown> MC:  We need to discuss this.
18:02:15 <MichaelC> public-aria-test@w3.org
18:02:39 <clown> MC:  People need to contact me if they want to subscribe to the public-aria-test list.
18:02:55 <clown> MK:  Should I paste in the new Issues into the minutes.
18:02:56 <mck> ISSUE-1034: Should spinbutton be a composite role? - Accessible Rich Internet Applications Working Group Tracker
18:02:56 <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-1034 Should spinbutton be a composite role?.
18:02:58 <mck> https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/track/issues/1034
18:02:59 <mck> ISSUE-1035: Are additional roles or properties needed to help authors build interactive list and tree structures with complex items? - Accessible Rich
18:03:00 <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-1035 Are additional roles or properties needed to help authors build interactive list and tree structures with complex items?.
18:03:02 <mck> https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/track/issues/1035
18:03:25 <jemmaKu> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria-test/
18:03:33 <clown> MC: Meeting is done.  We will pick up next week where we left off.
18:03:58 <clown> RRSAgent, pause
18:03:58 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'pause', clown.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
18:04:04 <clown> RRSAgent, stop