[Minutes: HTML-A11Y Media telecon minutes]

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