<scribe> scribe: becka11y
Janina: standard agenda plus outcomes from TPAC
Janina: requests for additional
items or news met with silence
... Very busy TPAC, got a lot accomplished; will send the
minutes out again from converstations
... webRTC is close to going to TR; had joint meeting with
them; US is mandating some types of RTT (real time text) for
accessing emergency services
... notion is to add an informative section on WebRTC 1.0 that
notes the importance of RTT;
<Joshue108_> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-holmberg-mmusic-t140-usage-data-channel-02
Janina: there is a specific RTT spec coming from IETF which may not be as widely scoped as we would like - want to support what IETF has created for now but possibly add additional uses cases to a future version of WebRTC
Joshus108: see the link above
Josh: Judy’s concern is that
there are existing implentations of RTT via polyfills. She
wants that captured in the webRTC spec so people will continue
to work on those polyfills;
... Have reviewed some of the text sent to the list; it is fine
because it acknowledges there is no formal way for WebRTC to
implement RTT; will add text that WebRTC will continue to
address the issues with RTT and perhaps work with IETF on
future protocols
<Joshue108_> Suggested addition from Josh..
<Joshue108_> Therefore the WebRTC working group will be actively looking to address this
<Joshue108_> gap in future use cases documents, as well as progressing technical API
<Joshue108_> requirements.
<Joshue108_> This may be done in conjunction with developed IETF protocols.
Janina: still a bit hazy about
what the problem is between what IETF is specifying and WebRTC
is supporting
... not sure we need to clarify all of the issues just note
that everyone is paying attention
Josh: still think it is good to call this out to make it explicit
Janina: need a fast turnaround - perhaps review the text via email so we can meet the schedule and have a decision by Monday - hopefully kickoff 48 hour CFC tomorrow
Josh: I have the polyfill text
<Joshue108_> <josh suggestion for polyfill>
<Joshue108_> There are current polyfill implementations such as x,y,z that do enable
<Joshue108_> effective RTT support in WebRTC applications. This is sufficient until
<Joshue108_> future gateways are enabled via IETF protocols such as the SCTP data channel
<Joshue108_> protocol and RFC 4103 Real-time text, and this needs to be defined via IETF
<Joshue108_> or in conjunction with related work at W3C groups to effectively standardise
<Joshue108_> RTT support.
<Joshue108_> </polyfill>
Josh: x, y, z references are waiting for Judy to fill in with explicit references to the polyfill implementations
Janina: what I understand from
Dom is that a gateway solution is used
... for protocol translation
Jason: WebRTC tries to provide a standard transport for the real time text; IETF suggests that there might be some negotiation involved
<Joshue108_> +1 to Jason
Jason: WebRTC design that is put forward to IETF uses a different protocol and thus a protocol translation is needed
<Joshue108_> Great that he is here *smile
Janina: any other thoughts we can
use to put this forward and have a CFC tomorrow
... we don’t want to hold up WebRTC CR so will move this along
with minimum time frames
... 3 great sessions discussing immersiion Web practices;
including tutorial on how Web 3D works; goal of having a shared
understanding and vocabulary so we can discuss bringing a11y
into immersive web, AR, XR etc
... important that we have a shared objective; GLTF was
mentioned as possible mechanism
... agreed that gaming is a good judge of what approaches work,
or not because it is a highly rich environment
... Personalization TF got a boost from I18N; had a meeting to
discuss deficiencies for specifying sign languages around the
world - also includes coding for sign languages but brought up
that symbolic languages need to be includes as well
... meeting agreed that symbols don’t have to be part of UTF
since we want to provide a translation between symbol
sets;
... different symbol sets are similar to the early days of
Braille where if you learned one type you couldn’t
read/understand the other; Thus we understand we need a
translation between symbol sets - I18N agreed
... Lisa Seeman was able to put together a demo of how this
could work in Chrome over webEx - this got someone else ot
implement in Firefox
... pronounciation spec moved forward in joing meeting with TAG
and there is now understanding that we can’t rely on just AT to
solve this - will need something in HTML; Joanie and others got
a proposal put together
... had a good session with CSS - they believe some of what we
want to acheive is already possible - need more converstation
on this; also need to look at additional requirements - one
being on defining spacing between words
<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/2019/09/15-css-minutes#item29
Janina: see CSS meeting minutes above
Ian: any update on AAM for CSS? I think the agreement is to move forward. Joanie will be tech editor and Zoe will pull out CSS features that we want to standardize accross the a11y api
Joanie: We have forked the repo and will work offline until pull request to merge it back in
Janina: was very busy.
(scribe note: Ian question above was answered by Janina - not split out to give proper credit to Janina)
Janina: Ted Gill and I had a session at the Data Modeling for Transportation Workshop; they are continuing to build the data model.
<Joshue108_> https://www.w3.org/2019/08/inclusive-xr-workshop/
Janina: upcoming workshop in Seattle on inclusive and immersive web technologies?
Janina: this was co-organized by
Leonnie; Believe there is also an authentication workshop
coming
... TF are following up from info gained at TPAC; Good
progress
Jason: RQTF continuing to work on WebRTC issues and immersive web
Michael: Nothing new
Janina: interesting meeting of groups that do horizontal reviews at TPAC - trying to standardize the process so groups have a consistent way to interact with the review groups; happy to see TAG endorse explainer documents
Janina: looks like explainers will be expected (but perhaps not demanded)
Michael: 3 pronounciation
documents - no need to review ;-)
... have some editorial comments on Web of Things
<MichaelC> Verifiable Credentials Data Model 1.0
Michael: 3 related; verifiable
credentials - we had submitted comments; don’t believe we have
gotten a response so may have an isse
... <looks for a response - didn’t find one> So we need
to raise this. I will start with the project mgmt lead
(PLH)
<MichaelC> Verifiable Credentials Implementation Guidelines 1.0
Michael: also two new notes that were published - verifiable credentials implementation guideline 1.0
Janina: are these the same people we met with about killing CAPTCHA
Michael: related but not the same
<MichaelC> Verifiable Credentials Use Cases
Michael: need to investigate why our comments were not requested of not reviewed
<MichaelC> Self-Review Questionnaire: Security and Privacy
Michael: think we only need to review in horizontal review process
Janina: agreed
<MichaelC> MiniApp Standardization White Paper
Michael: believe we do need to review this one; MiniApps are a big thing in China; host application can install a miniApp; gives better than a web page but less than an app; suspect there are accessibility issues
Janina: anyone interested in reading - we do need a review;
Michael: it is no track;
developed by Chinese Web interest group;
... perhaps ask Roy to give a tutorial on this at a future
meeting
<Gottfried> Becky: We looked at the community groups a year ago. Created a table with a column for asignee. Added a description.
<Gottfried> ... Also column with last update date, sortable.
<Gottfried> ... We need to agree on this list.
<Gottfried> Janina: We previously agreed on this. How many?
<Gottfried> Becky: About 20.
<Gottfried> Janina: Let' sgo
<Gottfried> Becky: Solid. https://www.w3.org/community/solid/d
<Gottfried> The Solid project aims to improve privacy and data ownership on the Web through a proposed set of conventions and tools for building decentralized social applications.
<Gottfried> * Machine Learning for the Web. https://www.w3.org/community/webmachinelearning/
<Gottfried> Becky: No need to track. Agreed.
<Gottfried> ... RDF-DEV. https://www.w3.org/community/rdf-dev/. No need to track.
<Gottfried> ... Publishing. https://www.w3.org/community/publishingcg/. No need to track.
<Gottfried> ... Audio. https://www.w3.org/community/audio-comgp/. Propose no need to track.
<Gottfried> Janina: We might want to think about that.
<Gottfried> ... We should inform the community that they should create an explainer.
<Gottfried> ... High-level introduction what Web Audio is supposed to do.
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/joing/joint/ Succeeded: s/sectiont o/section on/ Succeeded: s/are/out/ Succeeded: s/out/our/ Present: janina Becka11y Matthew_Atkinson MichaelC IanPouncey Gottfried jasonjgw Found Scribe: becka11y Inferring ScribeNick: Becka11y Found Date: 02 Oct 2019 People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. 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]