<scribe> scribe: JF
Paired down and light agenda today
will be looking at the new tracking system in more detail
MA: Quick announcement. Knows of a person at RNIB who is doing testing of XR
hope to see some feedback on the XAUR which she really likes
<Joshue108_> Great to hear Matthew!
will be providing feedback shortly via mailling list
JS: wondering aloud if RNIB is still a W3C member - maybe conscript a new member there?
JO: glad to hear positive feedback
LW: just verified that RNIB is still a member
JS: not much to say. All documents that were going to [publication have now been published
some followup with Shawn - apologies for delay in publishihng (ref: Pronunciation TF)
Issues related to CSS speak module versus Pronunciation TF have been resolved (positively)
complimentary, not competing
JS: Personalization is struggling with revamping explainer after TAG review
MC: there are several
<MichaelC> https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/grorg/admin/blob/wg-charter-draft/wg-charter.html
We've had some level of interest with this one
JS: question for Mathew - is this too low level?
MA: believe so, yes, but double-checking now
JS: agree, believe we've already discussed this
MC: so no comment frm APA?
JS: yes
MA: quick look - think it is probably too low level
JS: but should a11y be
addressed/included here?
... is there some value here?
MA: looks like something like Open GL - just a tool. We're likely more intersted at a slightly higher level
the level where a11y would be considered would be higher than this
MC: so can sign off o htis?
JS: yes
<MichaelC> https://w3c.github.io/webtransport-charter/charter.html
MC: suspect this too is too low-level
JS: any disagreement?
[none]
<MichaelC> https://w3c.github.io/dap-charter/DASCharter-2020.html
JF: is this WoT?
MC: believe WoT is higher
up
... I think we've commented on this once before
[checking]
MC: we looked at some, and decided not to comment
JF: possibility of pro-active outreach?
MC: do we want them to have a
liason statement to APA? Doesn't seem that clear to me
... when we look at their spec, we need to ensure they *do*
have somehting related to a11y
... it starts out as boiler-plate, and they chose not to remove
it from their charter
MA: thinking about previous topic
- only concern is if it by-passes AT?
... not sure if that requires a full coordination , or just a
question we need to ask at the appropriate time?
MCF: if there is a known or predictable issue, we should act, otherwise we can wait
MC: thinking we can wait for now
<MichaelC> https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-wg-charter/
MA: wait and ask the question via normal channels
MC: pretty sure we decide this too was too low level
[multiple agreements]
<MichaelC> https://w3c.github.io/epub-3-wg-charter/
E-Pub 3
we were going to take this to WAI coordination meeting - feels like this is more of an ARIA WG item than APA
JS: we should ask then. next call is next week
<MichaelC> https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/eowg-2020.html
MC: normally we wouldn't review one of our own groups, but Judy would like us to look at this with a fine-tooth comb
<scribe> ACTION: Janina to review EO Charter at https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/eowg-2020.html
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2244 - Review eo charter at https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/eowg-2020.html [on Janina Sajka - due 2020-04-08].
<scribe> ACTION: Leonie to review EO Charter at https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/eowg-2020.html
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2245 - Review eo charter at https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/eowg-2020.html [on Léonie Watson - due 2020-04-08].
MC: there are none for us to
review... but need to look back 2 weeks...
... Media queries level 5
JS: we should re-consider with regard to Personalization
MC: we've already noted tht
... but looking back, no other new specs to look at
<MichaelC> https://w3c.github.io/horizontal-issue-tracker/?repo=w3c/a11y-review
MC: there are 6 comments we've not responded to
at a minimum we need to respond yes or no
MC: our comment is likely "we don't need to track", right?
JS: unclear
think we're interested that this is implemented
not sure if there is need for our input
MC: this may just be a dangling issue...
JS: do we need to investigate?
MC: we need to satisfy ourselves. Will leave as pending at this time
JS: we need to review the 6 in our queue
MC: putting a note in this
... next is "deprecate speech media type"
... assume we *don't* want to deprecate at this point
JS: Leonie, are yo awqare of any relationship here?
LW: no, but the CSS speech thing has been parked for a decade
but will investigate
MC: so another one where we need to learn more
<scribe> ACTION: Leonie to investigate if there is a
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2246 - Investigate if there is a [on Léonie Watson - due 2020-04-08].
<MichaelC> close action-2246
<trackbot> Closed action-2246.
<scribe> ACTION: Leonie to investigate Media Queries Level 5 related to CSS SPeech
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2247 - Investigate media queries level 5 related to css speech [on Léonie Watson - due 2020-04-08].
MC: comment to add new CSS text transform values for math
was very active, but has slowed recentl;y
MC: suspect we want to track
JS: yes
<MichaelC> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3775
<MichaelC> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3775
MC: suspect we also want to track that issue
<MichaelC> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3040
Jonny James filed this - perhaps on our behalf. Suspect we should continue to track
JS: agree
<MichaelC> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3856
JS: should we run this by Andy at AGWG/Silver?
[consensus to do that]
JS: so we're keeping all of these active
and we have next steps on almost all of them
JS: we've not looked at this in a
while
... hope to be more up-to-date by this time next week
BG: we looked at P-in-P and discussed, but never wrote anything down, so need to do that still
<Gottfried> action-2239?
<trackbot> action-2239 -- Gottfried Zimmermann to Review media queries level 5, https://www.w3.org/tr/mediaqueries-5/ -- due 2020-03-18 -- OPEN
<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2239
GZ: Media queries 5 is still on me - hope to have it ready for next time
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/wondreing/wondering/ Succeeded: s/yew/yes/ Succeeded: s/investigatge/investigate/ Default Present: Janina, Matthew_Atkinson, Joshue108_, JF, Gottfried, becky, Irfan_ Present: Janina Matthew_Atkinson Joshue108_ JF Gottfried becky Irfan_ Found Scribe: JF Inferring ScribeNick: JF Found Date: 01 Apr 2020 People with action items: janina leonie 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]