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

Minutes of 19 June UAWG teleconf

From: Matt May <mcmay@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 10:50:47 -0700
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Message-Id: <388DFD0C-A5A3-11D7-9E64-000393B628BC@w3.org>

Last meeting:
Next meeting:
3 July

Roll call:
Jon Gunderson
Matt May
Harvey Bingham
Cathy Laws
Ian Jacobs
David Poehlman

* User Agent charter
* Face-to-face plans
* XHTML 2.0 comments
* Implementation report

Action items:
mm send notice to list for Bay Area, 9/15-16
jg Discuss charter with Judy

jg Possible future discussion: invite Shawn to UA meeting to talk about 

* User Agent charter
jg: Any update?
mm: No.
jg: What about the revised version?
ij: Nothing to my knowledge. I sent comments. Judy responded on 19 May, 
and I made edits in place
jg: What's the process on charters? When can we show it to the WG.
ij: Have to get it through Judy first.
jg: Comments on current or future charters should go to ij, mm or 
hb: Should include getting new products to join in

* Face-to-face plans
mm: Three offers: Sun, Netscape and Adobe have responded.
AGREED: meet at Sun
jg: Tentative date?
mm: Mon-Tues, September 15-16

ACTION: mm send notice to list for Bay Area, 9/15-16

ij: Concerned about our charter, since that may affect who would 
attend. It would be good to let people know we're thinking about 
meeting, but I don't want to set expectations. We're kind of stuck.
ij: I know we have lots of work being done, but it will need AC review 
if we're making any substantive changes. I don't want to push it and 
keep working the way we want.
jg: I'll bring this up at the WAI-CG meeting

ACTION: jg Discuss charter with Judy

* XHTML 2.0 comments
ij: I met with Steven Pemberton. We've spoken twice. I updated the 
document this morning based on those discussions.
We got through sections 1 and 2. HTML WG is meeting this week, and I 
was hoping to be done in time, but couldn't. They're working on 
features and revisions and we'll have to keep tracking it. Not too 
excited to include accessibility features in context. They'd rather 
have an appendix.
They're hesitant to put requirements on UAs, so we will have to keep 
them engaged. They want another client-side redirect construct. I said 
that causes problems, can you require configuration to turn that off, 
and he said yes.
Looks like they're going to get rid of noscript element.
Useful discussion, but we're not their top priority, so we'll have to 
keep pushing.
Steven also said yes to issues like author style sheets.
jg: Are they going to have a test suite?
ij: I don't know. I didn't discuss that with them.

* Implementation report
jg: Two vendors are working on conformance statements. That should 
raise the profile.
jg: One question about what we call test suites?
ij: Judy showed the test suite page in a presentation. We need to 
clarify that we're doing test suites for software, not formats. Still a 
question about whether to do test suites for non-W3C formats.
mm: Current wcag practice is to have vendors host techs docs for their 
jg: We're more about behaviors for rendering content. If we eliminated 
non-W3C, we wouldn't have any audio or video specs.
ij: The only concern I had was things like test suites for RealPlayer. 
The focus should be on UAAG, rather than the application. We should 
talk to those vendors to see if they have materials available, etc.
jg: Could focus on RealText+SMIL and QuickText+SMIL, since we have 
resources for that. 
Received on Monday, 23 June 2003 13:47:17 UTC

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