- From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 16:14:46 -0800 (PST)
- To: "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
The minutes from the 16 February 2011 Media Sub Team can be accessed as hypertext from: http://www.w3.org/2011/02/16-html-a11y-minutes.html ...and as plain text following this announcement -- as usual, please report any errors, clarifications, mis-attributions, and the like by replying-to this announcement on-list JF *************************** HTML-A11Y telecon 16 Feb 2011 See also: IRC log Attendees Present Judy, John_Foliot, +29374aaaa, Silvia Regrets Chair Janina_Sajka Scribe JF Contents * Topics 1. Identify Scribe 2. Actions Review http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open 3. Issue-152 Multitrack API http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Feb/0079.html * Summary of Action Items <janina> agenda: this <scribe> scribe: JF Identify Scribe Actions Review http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open Janina: still not have had a chance to address Action 99 Issue-152 Multitrack API http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Feb/0079.html Silvia: concerned that we cannot reach any agreement in the next 2 days - worried about schedule slippage Discussion on the various option in http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Multitrack_Media_API > Discussion on the various option in http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Multitrack_Media_API (Concern about minuting and whether Zakim is capturing) Silvia: we have not heard from Microsoft nor Mozilla and Google isn't really active in the design phase Janina: this is an importan issue for not only a11y, but also i18n Silvia: for high-quality content producers as well also the WebTV WG many others have started to discuss this issue in other forums as well really feels wrong to propose 3 or 4 CPs and then they might be trumped later by a better solution feels it is premature at this time Silvia: not up to this group to come up with the technical solution given the size and overlap of this issue <judy_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0074.html <judy_> it is feb 23 not feb 21 - Feb 23, 2011 - every issue has at least one Change Proposal Consequences of missing this date: issues will be closed without prejudice and marked POSTPONED; can be reconsidered during LC or for a later version of HTML. +1 to Judy <silvia> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jan/0198.html <- Feb 21st on this issue we have 7 possible change proposals, we should get them entered into the Issue queue so that we meet the stated deadline <judy_> judy sees two different timelines at play -- seeing sylvia's note above, i think that the feb 21 day should be flexible by reasoned appeal, but there is a separate deadline for feb 23, that is not changeable. <silvia> http://www.w3.org/2010/Talks/1102-html-plh/#%284%29 <silvia> ^the timeline of the WG judy: want to ensure that we have the best "package" by the 23 Feb. [Discussion] concern about timelines and associate risk Silvia: what has changed is that within the larger WG, many others have become involved in this discussion, and starting to realize the impact on their work this is good Janina: is it the same people, or is it new people getting involved Silvia: a whole new group of people who have just realized how this will impact them Judy: if we move this to another group, we take it out of the advanced implementations of HTML5, and give it to an interest group (Web and TV) that has a timeline and horizon further out than what serves a11y issues ... we should be realy convinced that the engineering to do multi-track well should be deferred to another group <Zakim> judy_, you wanted to wonder though what the implications are for addressing accessibility needs in html5 if this is moved to web and tv Silvia: one way to look at this is that "Option 1" is needed (and requires JavaScript) silvia, we seem to have lost you <silvia> ups Silvia: believes that Option 1 is the default solution, but concerned that if we propose other solutions, and the WG needs to pick one, concerned about the relationship with other WGs Janina: believe we might be getting somewhere perhaps we can determine with others if this is going to be problematic to them down the road Silvia: not the easiest to implement, but the easiest to specify actually one of the hardest to implement and is why the browsers are pushing back on it Silvia: if we want 1 & 7, we need to ensure the JS API is the same MPEG DASH file is being proposed for the Manifast file we don't want more than one codec in each manifest file for example Judy: can we, by next week, develop a clear plan and a timeline for reaching something so that we can get it into the spec before lastCall Silvia: likes the idea of setting up a road-map Chairs have already said the wiki page needs to exploded out to 8 CPs For next week we will work up some time lines for what we think it would take to specify multiple binary track support for HTML5 Janina: suggest that we move forward with a proposal,option 1, and then wait to see what others put forward Judy: can we also try to confirm participation of others who should be on the call next week
Received on Thursday, 17 February 2011 00:15:21 UTC