Outstanding from last week:
Minutes from 20 January meeting.
GV suggest move "one size fits all" thread to IG. no need. has ended.
JW propose way for handling mechanism for moving threads between IG and WG. JW track incoming requests for participation.
WC update the discussion of table linearization in the Techniques. done.
WC take resolution to ER (defn in WCAG is the one to use). done.
WL give electronic reference to Jakob Nielsen's new book.
IJ resubmit proposal for 11.1. Refer to Ian's original proposal from 28 July. open.
JW proposal for dealing with relationships between 3.3, 5.3, and 11.1. done.
WC takes action to make sure test results are incorporated into the user agent support page. Done.
WC put daniel's PICS conformance scheme into errata. Done.
CMN to write RDF schema in relation to WCAG and IJ's unified conformance scheme. Refer to Charles' message from 17 January. Done - group needs to review and comment.
WC write, post, and link from WCAG home page "how to get into ETA." Open.
WC make reading ETA issues public, but adding issues only working group. Done.
GV javascript discussion on uaccess-l. on our site, we're using javascript and style sheets that transforms gracefully. We get lots of hits by a variety of browsers.
DB we face the same problems and are looking at similar solutions.
GV someone needs to document these solutions so that people can use them. It's troubling that Netscape freezes when it uses some style sheet stuff.
GV document once set up, then bring it to the list for review, then post to IG.
WC I have documented what I did with MWC - it uses scripts, style sheets, etc. We could start discussions with that.
JW we ought to post to the list.
GV we need to find more examples of pages that work.
JW work will continue on this solution, it will be reviewed by IG for compatibility issues, and then we'll add all that that passes muster to Techniques document.
GV first send to this list.
All on the call are likely to go.
IJ shall we send individual invitations to the people who have responded to call for participation?
/* yes */
DB give it more time on the list.
GV yes, let's head towards it. pull the plug if we don't get a sufficient showing.
@@WC move ahead w/plans for 20th March face-to-face
WC describes issues that ER wants clarification on.
GV "title" is a short descriptive title, "caption" is a description of one to two sentence description of the table, "summary" provides an overview of the content. "title" a few words, "caption" a couple sentences, "summary" as long as it has to be.
WC what info included in "summary"? /* reads from HTML 4 spec */
GV "the purpose of the table is to show x, y, z and is laid out in the following fashion."
JW relationships among the different items, especially those which are not mentioned, should be mentioned in summary. CAPTION should not be required. summary rather important, especially if complicated table.
WL where is summary?
WC it is an attribute of the TABLE element.
IJ there are reasons for doing that. CAPTION always rendered. "summary" so wouldn't be rendered.
JW follow gregg's suggestion. context dependent. should convey aspects of structure and relationships not obvious. especially if table put through table linearizer and relationships are lost.
IJ the attributes like alt and longdesc were not designed by this WG. many of them are inherited (like SMIL from HTML) w/out testing. Therefore, do we need to inhereit the issues.
WL how do browsers deal with summary?
IJ there is no rendering information for it in the HTML spec. XML says don't do in attributes, use elements. therefore, this is going off in a different direction. I don't think we should clarify the meaning of these things.
WL if we try to deal with caption, summary, title then it's an exercise in ivory tower discussions if the browsers don't use them.
JW if it's complicated it needs a summary.
WL does the summary does something do like what would happen if you hire a really good reader?
IJ you could do a "d-link"
JW the idea is that table linearizer would show the summary. thus, that can eliminate the support problem. as far as what to do for ER: agree with gregg's proposal.
WC not only take to ER, also add to Techniques doc.
IJ also interaction with PF.
JW 1. write up in techniques. 2 send to ER. 3. take to PF
@@WC write up proposal for changes to Techniques doc re: TABLE summaries, captions, and title. send to list. once group happy pass along to ER.
JW willing to take advise to PF. summary should be element rather than attribute.
IJ there is a general project for HTML re: how HTML attributes interact. we don't say don't use title if use alt. alt, londesc, title all had different uses. for table, should we take this to the list to generate more ideas? are we suggesting changes to HTML?
JW summary could evolve into an element. it's a question of PF tracking what is said in relation to these elements so that when it comes up in future formats they're advise is consistent with our techniques document.
WL someone said that summary does not bear the same relation to table as longdesc to IMG.
IJ partly because longdesc is a URI. modularization of XHTML..there is a table module and a forms module. they are in last call. has PF done any work on table module?
JW they have.
IJ last call ends 1 Feb.
JW PF in meeting right now.
IJ can PF say that we need to establish a consistent and adequate approach to providing equivalents. now that's in in XML we can say "create a namespace" for these things.
@@JW remind PF that table information be supported in consistent way with other access elements/attributes.
JW IJ has postponed his action item until next week. therefore, postpone this discussion.
Tracking levels of CSS implementation and inconsistencies among different implementations for user agent support page and techniques document (is this already being carried out externally, E.G. by the W3C style activity or other organisations)?
JW my understanding is that the w3c css activity is tracking CSS implementations. that would be useful for techniques.
@@IJ talk with style lead to find out if recording support.
WC webreview has a list of support, although a bit outdated and not granular enough for my tastes.
WL are people supporting it?
IJ moving in that direction.
JW GR said Opera claim css1, and mozilla claiming css2 on the way.
@@WC point rob to the info in techniques doc (webreview's safe list and the w3c css test suite) as he implements if he finds ommissions or things to add, we can add them.
@@WC keep pestering companies to provide information about their browser support.
GV let's schedule 1 1/2 hours, but try to keep 1 hour.
IJ has anyone else requested this time?
@@WC will request this time for 1 1/2 hours.
resolved: discuss on list. probably best for UA list rather than WCAG.
$Date: 2000/11/08 08:30:14 $ Wendy Chisholm
p