Actual discussion of proposed changes will occur in following telecons and discussions on the list. This is just to get a feel for consensus on edits not to bring the group to consensus.
Jason White - 27 September 2000.
Determine agenda and priorities for f2f meeting.
WC Propose quickly go through list of changes to latest draft. Get "ya's - good edit" or "nay's - bad edit." Ya's we'll leave as is, the Nay's we'll go through once we get back and work on to make better. I would like clear idea if we have consensus on these changes, some were fairly substantial
CS and GR agree good idea.
JW CMN suggests a techniques session. Wishes ATAG would have done more work on Techniques before going to Rec.
CS, LRG, WC like that idea.
JW Editing on the spot, proposing techniques in smaller groups. Whole group considering.
WC Also help us to see who interested in which technologies.
GR Definitely helped with UAAG Guidelines last year.
WL Which languages?
WC Name any of 'em! Should first write about those that we get the most questions about, but should help people using whatever language conform to WCAG.
WL Want parallel documents to HTML and CSS?
WC Yes.
JW And checklists as discussed last week.
WL The number of items that will be covered by these technologies will be small. Of the 65 checkpoints, SMIL is only associated with 2.
JW Yes, there will be a limited number.
WC What about XML? Kynn, still think it should be a separate document?
KB Different audience: using a technology versus creating a new language.
JW Think the distinction will become less.
Resolution: put it on the agenda
CS Stating our assumptions. What do we expect a browser to do? Make that more concrete.
JW UAAG will be relevant. By the time WCAG 2.0 begins process to Rec we should have UAAG in place. Will be dependency on them.
CS How to determine when UUA clause is met.
WC Or how to get rid of it.
CS Although spec will always be ahead of implementation.
LGR Seems at odds with the backwards compatibility item.
MM The existing UUA are preferable but not reliable, it is the direction W3C wants the technology to head. Since Backwards compatibility is the goal of several specs it seems to put it in "this is how things should have been."
JW We have by and large eliminated "until user agents." last week, discussed the idea that requirements that are dependent on UA should be treated in techniques with exceptions and qualifications.
WC Perhaps part of the break-out groups discuss until user agents in regards to specific technologies in break out sessions on techniques.
JW user interface design and metaphors are being influenced by Voice Browser working group and XForms.
CS With several of us going to the DIW there should be good new info.
WC Should we have a discussion about that for those who did not go (an update) as well as letting those of us who did go share thoughts and ideas?
/* lots of agreement */
WC Anything in specific to discuss with AU WG?
JW What dependencies do we have that ought to be discussed?
WC Anything in particular we want them to think about or read? The new draft? Specific checkpoints?
WL Forms. Cuts across UA, WCAG, and AU. The browser or server becomes an authoring tool.
WC What exactly do we need to ask?
WL We have to make our forms requirement so that it acknowledges what the ATAG requires.
WC So we can ask AU WG for help how to address that.
WL When you fill out a form on a Web page you are a Web author.
MM You're average content management system is essentially that.
WC HTML WG asking for requirements, spend some time thinking about at the F2F or on the list?
JW We're getting a lot of agenda items, prioritize?
WL HTML, Techniques, when a technique is applicable to a variety of technologies and priorities appears in one place with no caveat.
JW We haven't dealt with priorities yet.
WC Planning - set milestones, aim for when go to last call, next f2f, etc.
WC Normative vs non-normative
GR Home page: no link to test pages.
Action WC: Add link to test pages from WCAG Home page underneath the work on Techniques section.
/* WC goes through proposed agenda items */
GV We have not dealt with the document-based vs. server-based flexibility. How do our guidelines work if the server actually serves different pages to different people. "All content should be servable that meets the following specs."
JW Basically what guideline 2 says. If there are issues with that, then we should put them into the discussion.
GV One form kicks it out as vanilla HTML (no tables, charts, etc.) like an alt-text page. In old one, alt-text page is last resort. Perhaps it should be a first resort if it is databased based.
JW /* Reads from latest draft */
GV Have this discussion before the XML discussion.
JW That's where guideline 6 comes into play - requirements for if you need to provide a style sheet or other mechanism, etc.
Action WC: Add dynamically generated (from database) to open issues list.
WC Kynn - how's your XSLT with WCAG coming along? Want to demo?
KB Not sure that it will be ready, but could discuss.
WC People find that valuable?
GV Have to discuss after the normative/non-normative version so that people know what to conform with.
WL In the checklist document, "if you are using tables, vs frames" etc is a mini-thing of what we are talking about.
JW Yes, include on agenda. If using XSLT to create the versions, the XML would have everything. That could be downloaded as the document set.
KB Try to have something available.
WL We are in danger of ignoring the "cyber-ghetto." This discussion reeks of this issue. Possible that things like "final form" can be exclusionary. /* part of the database discussion */
GR Having a floppy with agenda, documents, etc.would be helpful.
Action WC: Summarize agenda items. Propose times for handling.
CS Either now or on the list, discuss what groups of technologies we want to discuss.
$Date: 2000/11/08 08:27:10 $ Wendy Chisholm