W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2003

[Minutes] 15 May 2003 UAWG teleconf (review of XHTML 2.0 comments)

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: 15 May 2003 15:51:27 -0400
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Message-Id: <1053028286.1799.47.camel@seabright>

Hello UAWG,

Minutes of the 15 May 2003 teleconf are available
as HTML [1] and as text below.

 - Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/05/15-ua-summary.html


                     Minutes of 15 May 2003 UAWG teleconf

    1. Action item review
    2. Next ftf meeting
    3. Review of XHTML 2.0 comments

      [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2003AprJun/0015.html

   Previous meeting: [2]1 May 2003
   Next meeting: 29 May

      [2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2003/05/wai-ua-telecon-20030501.html

   Roll call: Jon Gunderson (Chair), Cathy Laws, Sean Stapleford, Colin
   Koteles, David Poehlman, Matt May, Ian Jacobs (Scribe)

Action items

          JG send draft charter to JB
          IJ send XHTML 2.0 commetns
          Not completed:
          1. JG: Update issues TS list for removing blink and marquee
          2. JG: Repair test suites for frames
          3. JG: Contact GW Micro about review
          4. JG: Add author stylesheet to individual evaluations
          5. MM: Working on evaluation of Apple Safari browser
          6. MM: Check into updating evaluation for to included
          downloaded forms
          7. DP: To contact Freedom Scientific about conformance claims
          8. JA and CL: Create implementation report for IBM Home Page
          reader using HTML 4.01 test suites
          CL: No progress on HPR. I'll just fill it out.
          JG: Regrets from Harvey for today.
          [Some admin points on paperwork for Colin work on test suites]
          JG: We should go over draft charter when WAI Team gets back.
          JG: Can Colin get direct access to the CVS system.
          [Discussion of account for Colin.]
          IJ: JG, I suggest that you send a request to sysreq and cc'
          Judy, explaining why the account is necessary.
          JG: We have a Konqueror review up.
          IJ: They all need review since I was pointing to wrong list of
          checkpoints in evaluator. :(
          Action IJ: Report diffs between old checkpoints and new
          checkpoints (checkpoints.xml and checkpoints-20031217.xml)

Next ftf meeting

          JG: Sun? Apple?
          MM: For when?
          JG: September 2002?
          JG: Late september / early October 2002 on the West Coast?
          Likely to attend: CL, JG, IJ, MM, CK, DP
          Unlikely: Sean
          Need to agree to date 8 weeks in advance (i.e., by July)
          Action JG: Ping Judy about organizing ftf meeting on West Coast
          (e.g., Apple)

Review of comments on XHTML 2.0

   Refer to [3]IJ summary of comments on 6 May 2003 XHTML 2.0

      [3] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2003/05/xhtml2-comments.html

          IJ: Sent update about 90 minutes ago
          IJ: Frames discussions as starting points for discussion
          IJ: We should prune things, since HTML working group is over

          How these comments are organized
          1. Comments related to user agent conformance
          2. Comments related to accessibility themes
          3. Miscellaneous comments
          4. New elements?

          IJ: Reviewed example in comments related to ordered and
          unordered lists
          IJ: Defined difference between processing and rendering content

          IJ: HTML WG has an opportunity to clear up spec (and not just
          import html 4.0 text) and promote interoperability; good for

          JG: Is there pressure from other groups
          IJ: QA
          JG: Are there other memeber companies pushing for this?
          IJ: We will be dicussing general QA issues with the AC
          IJ: They should have inline or at least references to
          IJ: Currently no references to WAI documents
          MM: I have a page worth of comments
          IJ: Please insert them into the draft
          IJ: Can you merge them?
          MM: Yes
          *** Accessibility themes
          IJ: Rendering should reference stylesheets
          IJ: They have alot of rendering information in the
          IJ: Table of contents should be about representation of
          information, not rendering
          IJ: Styling through default, author and user stylesheets
          IJ: We can add items here related to UAAG 1.0
          We say that users should be able to provide a simplified view

          JG: Opera has an outline view.

          IJ: Oultine views can be generated by Amaya, Mozillia
          IJ: They claim they are just about markup, not behavior
          IJ: Styling conditional content is important, alonng with
          controling styling
          IJ: Definition of content
          IJ: Our defintion is what is in the DOM
          IJ: Other WAI groups have other definition
          IJ: We want them to define content
          IJ: Conditional content
          IJ: There is less conditional content in XHTML 2.0
          IJ: ALT and LONGDESC have been removed
          IJ: The new model is using SRC on any element and the element
          content becomes the conditional content
          IJ: Important content
          IJ: Letting authors say this thing is important
          IJ: There are useful things
          IJ: important things can be styled to stand out
          IJ: Rather than relying on markup, use an attribute to indicate
          IJ: Some user may want to hide less important content and let
          the important content remain
          CL: Would it be an element or attribute
          JG: I think attribute is more flexible
          CL: Important would still be generic
          IJ: I think so
          CL: You could use it to skip navigation bars, indciate key
          IJ: This is pretty vague, in order for authors and developers
          to use IMPORTANT there needs to be better definitions
          CL: We need to define important
          CL: Exapnsion
          IJ: For abbreviations
          IJ: I will update commments
          IJ: One interesting side effect of getting rid of ALT and
          LONGDESC is that there is no way to differentiation between the
          IJ: It maybe useful to users to have both short and longer
          JG: Is TITLE still there
          IJ: yes
          IJ: There is a role attribute
          CL: One problem with not having LONGDESC is that you would not
          know what the conditional content is
          IJ: OBJECT will replace IMG, and you can embed OBJECTS to give
          the user more options
          IJ: Probably most authors will not do this
          IJ: All long descriptions are out of band
          IJ: There are times when you do not want to download and
          separating resources is useful
          IJ: Will put in a description
          IJ: Problem for visual and auditory user agents is how do you
          show options for rendering of an OBJECT
          DP: We are talking about descriptions, I don't hear about
          DP: I need what the image is conveying if I cannot see it
          DP: I don't see the discussion
          DP: This is a third peice
          JG: This is a WCAG issue
          DP: When ALT is taking away ALT and LONGDESC, but the third
          issue is what the image represents
          CL: Ordering issues?
          IJ: There are processing instructions
          CL: The problem is that the element can have both content and a
          TITLE attribute
          IJ: Maybe what we need, I suspect that they are independent of
          each other
          IJ: We need more specific rendering information for title
          IJ: This about conditional content rendering when there are
          more than one piece of conditional content is available
          IJ: By default no conditional content is rendered
          IJ: The the next step is user configuration of what should be
          rendered to the user
          CL: Some people what to render ALT instead of TITLE or TITLE
          instead of ALT
          CL: XHML 2.0 problem is now TITLE versus content
          IJ: Just leave this as a question in the current comments
          IJ: They want to include a REL redirect
          IJ: We do not want the feature, although some authors like it
          *** Navigation
          IJ: We need a better defintion of focus
          IJ: Other groups have other different defs of focus
          IJ: We can use this to clear up other defintions, for example
          activating a link
          CL: First element after a navigation bar or first active
          IJ: If navigation is defined as focus, then only active
          CL: Not always defined as active element
          CL: First element is not always active element
          JG: Point of regaurd
          DP: If you have an anchor, it will move to any element you tell
          it to

Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2003 15:51:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:32 UTC