Re: Minutes from 12 March 2015 Meeting

>They would be working group private until they are reviewed.  They wont be
public until next week.

and I am a member of the WG, just can't find the link :-)

--

Regards

SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>

On 12 March 2015 at 16:55, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> wrote:

> They would be working group private until they are reviewed.  They wont be
> public until next week.
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> As requested during the call, can someone provide the URL for the PF
>> meeting minutes for this week?
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> SteveF
>> HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>
>>
>> On 12 March 2015 at 16:06, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Draft minutes from the meeting are at
>>> http://www.w3.org/2015/03/12-html-a11y-minutes.html
>>>
>>> A text version is below.
>>>
>>>
>>> W3C
>>> - DRAFT -
>>>
>>> HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
>>>
>>> 12 Mar 2015
>>>
>>> See also: IRC log
>>>
>>> Attendees
>>>
>>> Present
>>> janina, Judy, Joanmarie_Diggs, LJWatson, Liam, ShaneM, Plh, IanPouncey,
>>> JF, SteveF, +1.617.319.aaaa, [IPcaller], darobin, Cynthia_Shelly,
>>> Rich_Schwerdtfeger
>>> Regrets
>>> Chair
>>> janina
>>> Scribe
>>> ShaneM
>>> Contents
>>>
>>> Topics
>>> Agenda review and edits
>>> CSUN news?
>>> Work Plan CfC - results
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2015Mar/0012.html
>>> Proposed Concurrent CfC Procedure
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2015Mar/0015.html
>>> Potential Other Consensus Procedure Changes
>>> "ARIA in HTML" Issues from PF
>>> Summary of Action Items
>>> <trackbot> Date: 12 March 2015
>>> <janina> Hi, Leonie, yes, for today
>>> <janina> It's essentially what Chaals posted, somewhat re-arranged
>>> <janina> Sure. Mostly different order.
>>> <janina> Additional item is "Potential Other Consensus Process Changes"
>>> <janina> PF has been discussing whether we can move closer to HTML'as
>>> auto publish heartbeats
>>> <janina> I wanted to explore that a bit further. This comes up from the
>>> CfC on "ARIA in HTML" which everyone seems to agree is FPWD ready, but
>>> which PF wants to copublish
>>> <janina> Thanks, Shane
>>> <scribe> Scribe: ShaneM
>>> Agenda review and edits
>>>
>>> janina: Agenda is largely as Chaals proposed. A couple of corrections.
>>>
>>> CSUN news?
>>>
>>> Apparently nothing special to report.
>>>
>>> Work Plan CfC - results
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2015Mar/0012.html
>>>
>>> <darobin> Zakim. [ is me
>>> janina: done with the list of deliverables and work statement edits.
>>> ... we need to pull the deliverables from the work statement so that
>>> they are easily referenceable. Liam can you do that?
>>>
>>> liam: we now have one list but it is not in a separate place. can do it.
>>>
>>> janina: we should let the co-chairs know that all interested groups to
>>> use the central list.
>>>
>>> Proposed Concurrent CfC Procedure
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2015Mar/0015.html
>>>
>>> janina: the language is designed so that we *can* do a concurrent CfC,
>>> but sometimes it may still be useful to do separate ones just to assess
>>> buy-in.
>>> ... the groups seem to hold off on starting a CfC until things are
>>> pretty settled.
>>> ... Note that the current process means it will take at least two weeks.
>>>
>>> <LJWatson> +1 to the proposed change.
>>> <Zakim> SteveF, you wanted to note that for heartbeta publications in
>>> HTML there is no CFC needed
>>> SteveF: Heartbeat publications in HTML don't need a CfC any longer.
>>>
>>> janina: yes - we will discuss that next.
>>>
>>> <MarkS> +1
>>> <plh> +1
>>> janina: It seems like there is agreement. We will need to do a CfC to
>>> adopt this change.
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> <darobin> +1
>>> Potential Other Consensus Procedure Changes
>>>
>>> janina: FPWD requires consensus. Moving to CR requires consensus.
>>> Heartbeat publications do not require it in the html working group.
>>> ... the PFWG has not adopted this change yet.
>>> ... current process requires a week minimum.
>>> ... Proposal that a heartbeat would be announced in advance so that
>>> people would have a chance to chime in. Not quite the same as HTML.
>>>
>>> <Zakim> darobin, you wanted to mention Echidna/automated publication
>>> darobin: W3C now has an automated publishing system. Groups that opt in
>>> can get things automatically published as a heartbeat.
>>> ... document users have complained that there is confusion between
>>> editors drafts and published heartbeats.
>>> ... would be nice to eliminate editors drafts altogether, instead having
>>> frequent automatic heartbeats.
>>>
>>> janina: we have discussed this in PF
>>> ... because of the PF horizontal review stuff frequent heartbeats are
>>> going to make it challenging to track documents as they evolve.
>>> ... PF knows to look at FPWD, but we don't know when we need to apply
>>> time later in the process.
>>>
>>> SteveF: There are problems with PF documents. ARIA authoring practices,
>>> for example, there are many URLs. Some are a couple of years old.
>>> ... when I am referencing things I want the most recent version.
>>> ... we need to ensure that content is not stale.
>>>
>>> janina: we need to have URIs be reliability and stability.
>>>
>>> Judy: Note that PF name change will not effect document URIs.
>>>
>>> <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask about process rules for Echidna
>>> ShaneM: do we need to adopt the new process rules to use Echidna?
>>>
>>> darobin: Yes. HTML WG has adopted it for the HTML spec already.
>>>
>>> <Zakim> darobin, you wanted to point out that Echidna still has dated
>>> specs
>>> darobin: Echidna still generates dated versions of specs. It is possible
>>> to get to a stable point and issue a call for wide review against a dated
>>> version.
>>> ... this would be a point where horizontal review would take place.
>>>
>>> janina: the issue is how do we know when changes are substantive or
>>> editorial. The length of the diff is one way.
>>>
>>> LJWatson: The benefit of frequent heartbeats is clear to the consumers.
>>> Heartbeats are just small steps on the way to the milestones we use for
>>> reviews anyway.
>>>
>>> "ARIA in HTML" Issues from PF
>>>
>>> SteveF: document is essentially a set of requirements for conformance
>>> checker implementors and authors as to when and how to use aria attributes
>>> ... same requirements that were in the HTML specification in the
>>> WAI-ARIA section.
>>> ... as part of M12N, was asked to split off this content into a separate
>>> document.
>>> ... HTML 5 implementation requirements on browsers will be in the ARIA
>>> mapping specification (HTML-AAM)
>>>
>>> janina: no disagreement that this was already in HTML 5
>>> ... and that it is probably ready for FPWD.
>>> ... PF would like to be a co-publisher of these two documents because
>>> they are a significant amount of work on the part of the PFWG.
>>> ... there has been contention in the past, and PF if concerned that we
>>> remain in the loop so that there isn't contention in the future.
>>> ... moreover need to speak with one voice. If we go to the point of
>>> putting this document into the horizintal review process it would change
>>> the charater of the relationship between PFWG and HTMLWG.
>>> ... that didn't work very well. We created this task force to help
>>> ensure things work better, and they now do.
>>> ... Particularly as things relate to ARIA, we want to help ensure work
>>> remains smooth.
>>>
>>> <Zakim> darobin, you wanted to point out that this has already been
>>> removed from HTML
>>> darobin: HTML has a vested interest in getting this published quickly.
>>> M12N needs close coordination. It would be easy for documents to go out of
>>> sync.
>>> ... we would end up being forced to reference the editors draft instead
>>> of a published draft if the document(s) are not published with similar
>>> frequencies.
>>> ... I appreciate that things were problematic several years ago, but we
>>> are no longer there. There is a much friendlier relationship.
>>>
>>> <MarkS> +1 to healthy working relationship
>>> darobin: we should not be constrained by things that happened years ago.
>>>
>>> janina: the fix is this task force.
>>>
>>> <richardschwerdtfeger> +1 to healthy relationship
>>> LJWatson: we have indeed moved a long way. the publication of ARIA in
>>> HTML by the HTMLWG sort of underlines the success of this task force.
>>>
>>> SteveF: What are the issues from the PF?
>>>
>>> janina: no disagreement that people want it published. The question is
>>> what is the long term status of this document.
>>> ... there is a consensus developing in the PF that we would like to be
>>> co-publishers.
>>>
>>> <SteveF> can we have a link to the PF minutes?
>>> JF: We are moving toward M12N. Robin said that "this has already been
>>> removed from HTML". I am confused about what it means when something is
>>> part of HTML or not. I thought extension specifications were supposed to be
>>> "part of HTML".
>>>
>>> darobin: It has been removed from the giant specification. That large
>>> document is too hard to review, to maintain, etc.
>>> ... it has been moved to a separate document. It has not been removed
>>> from the HTML language.
>>>
>>> richardschwerdtfeger: A concern is that someone could create a new role,
>>> for example. We worry about taxonomy impacts. That's the sort of thing that
>>> the PFWG is concerned about with the ARIA in HTML document. It is about
>>> tight coordination.
>>>
>>> janina: and we need to keep synchronized with the other ARIA documents
>>> too.
>>>
>>> <SteveF> note to rich, aria in html doc does not define any roles,
>>> states or properties
>>> <darobin> and if it did we'd hit SteveF
>>> richardschwerdtfeger: Google has also asked us to create some way to do
>>> things for web components with regard to ARIA.
>>>
>>> <JF> +1 to clarity in talking points
>>> Judy: M12N is about evolving the HTML specification. SteveF is working
>>> on ARIA stuff as a module because it is his particular interest.
>>> ... and yes, W3C needs to get its talking points in order. We are NOT
>>> removing things from HTML the language.
>>> ... HTML and ARIA are both evolving. SVG is going to be evolving. Unless
>>> we are closely coordinating we are going to have a mess later on.
>>> ... there are valid concerns about timing and synchronization. We should
>>> be able to work that out on a coordination level.
>>>
>>> CynS: The concern is more about being part of the product design team,
>>> as opposed to a reviewer after the fact.
>>>
>>> <Zakim> darobin, you wanted to point out that PF can be copublishers
>>> with the document still in Echidna (at least when Echidna gets fixed to
>>> support that)
>>> CynS: we want to work together, not throw things over the wall. Doing it
>>> in PF feels like a natural way to handle that.
>>>
>>> darobin: There is currently a bug in Echidna that makes it impossible to
>>> jointly publish a document right now. But that will get sorted.
>>>
>>> janina: What I want to suggest is that HTML could view this positively.
>>> Tight coordination and synchronization should may be easier as a result of
>>> M12N.
>>> ... SVG might need to do something similar.
>>>
>>> LJWatson: This information as been in the HTML monolith all along. Why
>>> are we concerned now that it is separate.
>>> ... it doesn't take any more reviewing or coordination.
>>>
>>> <Zakim> JF, you wanted to agree with the optics taht Leonie is talking
>>> about
>>> janina: because the subject area continues to evolve.
>>>
>>> JF: Yes this has been taken out of the big document. I think that is
>>> concerning.
>>>
>>> plh: PF expecting to be an author to any document that talks about ARIA
>>> is not going to work. HTMLWG had a similar problem with HTML extensions.
>>>
>>> <SteveF> john note I am taking out a large section of the monolith at
>>> the moment
>>> http://rawgit.com/stevefaulkner/elements-html/master/index.src.html
>>> plh: at the end of the day, PF created ARIA. Now other groups are taking
>>> and running with the idea. There will be some coordination problems. It
>>> shouldn't mean that PF becomes a co-publisher for every document that uses
>>> ARIA.
>>>
>>> <Zakim> darobin, you wanted to note that the expectation is that this
>>> would actually make things easier to review and sync, compared to the
>>> monolith and to also mention that we are looking
>>> darobin: monitoring the monolith was challenging. With M12N it makes it
>>> easier to track for reviewing and synchronizing.
>>> ... We would like to remove pretty much everything from HTML into
>>> smaller specifications.
>>>
>>> Judy: nothing is being taken out of HTML. Things are being split into
>>> separate, tightly related documents.
>>> ... the ARIA coordination stuff. When ARIA is getting embedded we need
>>> some ways to ensure it develops well.
>>> ... Maybe we need to offload some of the coordination from the TF to
>>> some off-line mechanism.
>>>
>>> <SteveF> suggests best way to ensure it gets embedded well is people
>>> providing technical feedback on modules
>>> Judy: maybe PF develops a PF feature that ARIA feels is critical, and
>>> HTML doesn't like it, what happens. Or the converse?
>>> ... maybe co-authorship isn't the right word?
>>>
>>> plh: the task force is to help with the coordination. If some group
>>> disagrees with what goes into a spec then that is what this is for.
>>> ... because this is on github you can get notifications on every edit on
>>> a per-module basis.
>>>
>>> Judy: we know its more effective to handle A11Y at the design stage.
>>> Notifications are nice, but influence before the edits / publication is
>>> more effective.
>>>
>>> janina: Working together ahead of publication is more effective.
>>>
>>> Summary of Action Items
>>>
>>> [End of minutes]
>>> Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.140 (CVS log)
>>> $Date: 2015-03-12 16:02:43 $
>>> Scribe.perl diagnostic output
>>>
>>> [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
>>> This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140  of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30
>>> Check for newer version at
>>> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/
>>>
>>> Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)
>>>
>>> Succeeded: s/cn/can/
>>> Succeeded: s/It should be fairly obvious when horizontal reviews are
>>> necessary./Heartbeats are just small steps on the way to the milestones we
>>> use for reviews anyway./
>>> Found Scribe: ShaneM
>>> Inferring ScribeNick: ShaneM
>>> Default Present: janina, Judy, Joanmarie_Diggs, LJWatson, Liam, ShaneM,
>>> Plh, IanPouncey, JF, SteveF, +1.617.319.aaaa, [IPcaller], darobin,
>>> Cynthia_Shelly, Rich_Schwerdtfeger
>>> Present: janina Judy Joanmarie_Diggs LJWatson Liam ShaneM Plh IanPouncey
>>> JF SteveF +1.617.319.aaaa [IPcaller] darobin Cynthia_Shelly
>>> Rich_Schwerdtfeger
>>> Found Date: 12 Mar 2015
>>> Guessing minutes URL:
>>> http://www.w3.org/2015/03/12-html-a11y-minutes.html
>>> People with action items:
>>>
>>> [End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]
>>>
>>> --
>>> Shane McCarron
>>> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Shane McCarron
> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
>