Meeting minutes
<janina> agenda, clear
Agenda Review & Announcements
<matatk> janina: We have streamlined the agenda a bit for time-effectiveness, we will handle any new TF deliverables under this section. TPAC is off the agenda for now - we continue to follow up.
HR A11y Review Comment Tracker
<Roy_Ruoxi> a11y-review requests
matatk: this has been covered in the last meeting on how we can label issues, but this is not yet closed, will be taken up on next Monday
<matatk> Vibration API: w3c/
Explicit Review Requests
<Roy_Ruoxi> w3c/
Roy_Ruoxi Fredrik has provided a feedback regarding document tone and improvements
<matatk> Fredrik's email: https://
<matatk> Issues for the Vision doc: https://
matatk: This has already been lodged
matatk: From accessibility perspective we do not have anything to add
New on TR
Web Audio API 1.1
<Roy_Ruoxi> - tracker: https://
<Roy_Ruoxi> - spec: https://
Roy_Ruoxi two new documents
Roy_Ruoxi This is regarding processing and synthesizing audio in web applications
Roy_Ruoxi This is first public working draft
<Roy_Ruoxi> https://
matatk: Page is heavy, change log doesn't include changes from 1.0 to 1.1, spec document is not accessible
<matatk> gb, status
<gb> matatk, the delay is 15, issues are off, names are off, full issues are printed 10 at a time; and no repositories are specified.
<Zakim> matatk, you wanted to suggest action for janina :-)
matatk we can log an issue and raise these concerns with the team
Audio Session
<Roy_Ruoxi> - tracker: https://
<Roy_Ruoxi> - spec: https://
Roy_Ruoxi: this is from media working group
ACTION: janina: draft issue on Web Audio API 1.1 on different output devices - due in 3 weeks
<matatk> gb, on
Roy_Ruoxi this is about API surface for controlling how audio is rendered and interacts with other audio playing applications.
ACTION: janina: draft issue on Web Audio API 1.1 on different output devices - due in 3 weeks
<gb> Sorry, I don't know what repository to use.
Repository: w3c/apa
ACTION: janina: draft issue on Web Audio API 1.1 on different output devices - due in 3 weeks
<gb> Created action #348
CSS Update (Paul)
PaulG Last week was TPAC meeting
Actions check-in
Allow any element to be the child of a custom element (parser weirdness permitting)
<matatk> our tracker: w3c/
<gb> Issue 213 Allow any element to be the child of a custom element (parser weirdness permitting) (by w3cbot) [tracker] [s:html] [whatwg]
<matatk> whatwg/
<gb> Issue 10722 Allow any element to be the child of a custom element (parser weirdness permitting) (by LeaVerou) [document conformance] [topic: custom elements] [a11y-tracker]
Masonry - and relayout
matatk: We talked about masonry layout last week; PaulG asked about whether events may be needed for AT to know that accTree has been updated, when rendering has.
matatk: I found that the intention is to ensure the accTree matches the masonry layout (which is right). w3ctag/
<gb> Issue 978 CSS reading-flow property (by dizhang168) [Progress: in progress] [Topic: CSS] [Venue: CSS WG] [Focus: API design (pending)] [Focus: Web architecture (pending)] [Focus: Security (pending)] [Focus: Privacy (pending)] [Focus:
<gb> … Accessibility (pending)] [Focus: Internationalization (pending)]
gb, issues off
matatk: Assuming AT just keeps asking the accTree for e.g. the next element, every time the users uses virtual cursor, and it's efficient to do that. But if cacheing is used, we may need events (would rather that not have to go into a spec though).
steve: Should ask AT vendors, event maybe needed
PaulG: concerned about the case where user is on item 2, asks for next one, and ends up on 4, due to a relayout.
<PaulG> https://
CSS Update (Paul)
Other business
ACTION: matatk: Coordination with AT vendors re CSS re-layout and accTree