<Irfan> scribe: Irfan
janina: need time from Leonie
after lunch
... anyone have any item to report?
Leonie: webplatform working group
charter is due on dec 31st.
... meanwhile all other specific is going to move to web
application working group
... web platform will become a liaison working group
janina: conversation about personalization will continue with web apps
leonie: web platform is on holding pattern until the negotiation is concluded. will put us to the right people after that
janina: anyone with question or
comments ?
... going to send a poll of decide of using media query to
handle lo vision requirements
... next step is to pull the resource for low vision task force
to help to make sure that low vision is covered in
personalization work... If the WHATWG/W3C agreement is
successful, the WebPlatform WG will likely evolve into the
liaison WG with the WHATWG.
<janina> irfan: Need recruitment messaging
<janina> irfan: Been meeting and talking up the work
<janina> janina: Please send drafts to me and Michael
janina: no apa meeting next week.
next meeting will be on Nov 28th
... no call on dec 26th and january 2nd
<MichaelC> CSS Flexible Box Layout Module Level 1
mc: dont remember if we need any
follow up on this.
... in 2016 we sent them feedback.. got reply and we discussed
it. we were going to negotiate during last tpac but have no
details.
... issue was the navigation order issue which we have not
sorted out.
... do we just leave this?
janina: if it is just navigation issue, then we can leave it
mc: marking review as complete. still need to sort navigation order but cant do anything on specs until it is done
<MichaelC> File API
mc: next spec file API
... it was update couple of weeks ago.
... not sure if there is any issue but will have Leonie to look
into it.
... check again in after march 2019.
<MichaelC> Payment Request API
<MichaelC> https://github.com/w3c/payment-request/pull/802
mc: this is going to CR in few
days. forwarded Janina an email. came up in a team discussion
about the issues. We have suggested a paragraph to be added for
accessibility concern. it does add an accessibility
consideration
... do we want to accept that?
janina: dont think what is
suggested is off the mark.
... are we giving anybody anything useful here?
... anyone with an opinion?
mc: if we want to that we need to do that very prompt way. we need to send them friendly amendment.
janina: it will point to WCAG?
<MichaelC> http://w3c.github.io/apa/payment-accessibility-reqs/
mc: we could potentially point to
github version payment requirement.
... in the future if we have something more mature, we could go
back to it.
janina: we can accept it.
mc: I am going to comment on pull request.
<MichaelC> -> Pointer Lock 2.0https://www.w3.org/TR/pointerlock-2/
<MichaelC> Pointer Lock 2.0
mc: from the review of previous version, specs are okay.
janina: is this primarily a low vision thing ?
mc: 1.0 we closed the comments. in 2.0 we got the notes last week. we discussed it in APA
leonie: i dont think there is anything in 2.0 that would affect 1.0 in-terms of accessibility perspective
<MichaelC> UI Events
mc: was trying to fugure out if it has changed the name or something. we dont have tracking of some related specs but I believe it is different. last version is 2016
leonie: UI event, keyboard events, code values
mc: ui event is nothing to worry
about right now. should we differed it?
... no changes.. changes recently.. deferred.. look again after
nov 2019
https://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-audioproc-20111215/
somebody has been assigned to take a look on specs. there are bunch of specs that are open to review.
mc: we are not delivering on reviewing and also we cant keep the track if something is ready for review
janina: we always gonna look to have substance in a new stuff. not relying on calendar to look if there is a new activity.
mc: specs that we mark as deferred, we can look the change log to determine if it is useful.
mc: we cleared bunch of actions last week
janina: want to move to spec review?
<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Category:Spec_Review_Assigned
mc: it will be more useful
<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Category:Spec_Review_Assigned
mc: I am going to mark it that
spec review is not needed at this time.
... HTML micro data. dont have any action number on it.
janina: is it active anymore?
mc: last draft was april 2019. I think this is very low level
janina: we can say, no need.
mc: we are going to ignore this
spec review.
... input events one and two, we discussed more than year ago
and I don't have any follow up since then
... we had a discussion with them but no record of further
activity. we need to circle back on this.
<MichaelC> close action-2063
<trackbot> Closed action-2063.
<janina> scribe: janina
lostlostcan't respond!
Payment Handler API
We will drop
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154 of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/./... If the WHATWG/W3C agreement is successful, the WebPlatform WG will likely evolve into the liaison WG with the WHATWG./ Default Present: janina, Becka11y, Joanmarie_Diggs, Jonny, James, Gottfried, JonnyJames, Léonie, (tink), Irfan, MichaelC Present: (tink) Irfan James Joanmarie_Diggs Jonny JonnyJames Léonie MichaelC janina Regrets: Becky Gottfried Found Scribe: Irfan Inferring ScribeNick: Irfan Found Scribe: janina Inferring ScribeNick: janina Scribes: Irfan, janina ScribeNicks: Irfan, janina Found Date: 14 Nov 2018 People with action items: WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]