HTTP/2 200 date: Wed, 08 Oct 2025 07:33:58 GMT content-type: text/plain content-length: 4854 cf-ray: 98b3f3fc5f1d58e1-BLR content-location: 18-pf-irc.txt vary: negotiate,accept,accept-charset,Accept-Encoding,Origin tcn: choice last-modified: Wed, 18 May 2011 17:06:33 GMT etag: "35ce-4a38fe9159840;602037ef01c60 cache-control: max-age=21600 expires: Wed, 08 Oct 2025 13:33:58 GMT content-encoding: gzip access-control-allow-origin: * x-backend: www-mirrors x-request-id: 98b3f3fc5f1d58e1 strict-transport-security: max-age=15552000; includeSubdomains; preload content-security-policy: frame-ancestors 'self' https://cms.w3.org/ https://cms-dev.w3.org/; upgrade-insecure-requests cf-cache-status: BYPASS accept-ranges: bytes set-cookie: __cf_bm=sO9yFLzB4us8yzf8vbol.QlWFKTDf0IEm8TvO9QNer8-1759908838-1.0.1.1-O48wGRvuMGXXTApUBr2s5ZR4MavsJikfM5AHsenU62aal5MV2I7Duabuuuvuc3daDdrKmWJEcRT85LR5pxU2ODo2pjjYa1lHNiLkcEapiME; path=/; expires=Wed, 08-Oct-25 08:03:58 GMT; domain=.w3.org; HttpOnly; Secure; SameSite=None server: cloudflare alt-svc: h3=":443"; ma=86400 15:59:46 RRSAgent has joined #pf 15:59:46 logging to https://www.w3.org/2011/05/18-pf-irc 15:59:51 zakim, this will be pf 15:59:51 ok, janina, I see WAI_PF()12:00PM already started 16:00:00 zakim, who's here? 16:00:00 On the phone I see +1.512.255.aaaa, ??P36 16:00:01 On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, janina, SallyC, richardschwerdtfe, trackbot 16:01:16 zakim, ??P36 is Janina 16:01:16 +Janina; got it 16:01:28 + +44.121.665.aabb 16:01:30 zakim, +aaaa is Mary_Joe 16:01:30 sorry, janina, I do not recognize a party named '+aaaa' 16:01:51 zakim, +1.512.255.aaaa is Mary_Joe 16:01:51 +Mary_Joe; got it 16:01:51 zakim, +44 is SallyC 16:01:53 +SallyC; got it 16:02:38 zakim, +44.121.665.aabb is Sally 16:02:38 sorry, janina, I do not recognize a party named '+44.121.665.aabb' 16:03:20 zakim, who's here? 16:03:20 On the phone I see Mary_Joe, Janina, SallyC 16:03:21 On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, janina, SallyC, richardschwerdtfe, trackbot 16:04:49 regrets: Tim_Boland, Gottfried_Zimmerman 16:05:03 Meeting: PFWG telecon 16:05:03 Chair: Janina_Sajka 16:05:03 agenda: this 16:05:03 agenda+ identify scribe https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/wiki/index.php?title=Scribe_List 16:05:03 agenda+ preview agenda with items from two minutes 16:05:04 agenda+ Actions Review https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/actions/open 16:05:06 agenda+ new on TR https://www.w3.org/TR/tr-status-drafts.html#tr_LCWD 16:05:08 agenda+ HTML 5 Longdesc Reconsideration https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011May/0419.html 16:05:10 agenda+ HTML 5 Last Call WBS https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/html5-last-call-poll/ 16:05:12 agenda+ Does PF Approve HTML 5 Last Call? https://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html#coordination 16:05:14 agenda+ Points of Interest FPWD https://www.w3.org/2011/05/10-pf-chairs-minutes.html#item10 16:05:16 agenda+ Realtime Communications CFP https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2011AprJun/0032.html 16:05:18 agenda+ Role Module: Is anything testable? 16:05:20 agenda+ ARIA.Next? https://www.w3.org/2011/05/10-pf-chairs-minutes.html#item04 16:05:22 agenda+ Scheduling UAIG Review 16:05:24 agenda+ ARIA: Bridge or A11y Core? https://www.w3.org/2011/05/06-pf-minutes 16:05:26 agenda+ Organizing Intentional Events agenda+ CSS Haptic/Braille 16:05:28 agenda+ Other Task Force Reports & Issues 16:05:30 agenda+ New Business 16:05:32 agenda+ next and future meetings https://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#s_273 16:05:34 agenda+ be done 16:05:50 Andi has joined #pf 16:06:06 +Tim_Boland 16:06:12 +Andi_Snow-Weaver 16:06:56 zakim, who's here? 16:06:56 On the phone I see Mary_Joe, Janina, SallyC, Tim_Boland, Andi_Snow-Weaver 16:06:57 zakim, who's here? 16:06:58 On IRC I see Andi, RRSAgent, Zakim, janina, SallyC, richardschwerdtfe, trackbot 16:06:59 On the phone I see Mary_Joe, Janina, SallyC, Tim_Boland, Andi_Snow-Weaver 16:07:01 On IRC I see Andi, RRSAgent, Zakim, janina, SallyC, richardschwerdtfe, trackbot 16:08:48 Scribe: SallyC 16:09:48 + two minutes 16:10:12 JS: Skip action items as we are small 16:10:17 in attendance 16:10:38 JS: And skip new last calls. We can be confident there is nothing there 16:11:21 JS: Publication of several HTML 5 documents for next week 16:11:53 JS: Longdesc and if we think html 5 is ready for last call and the poll are related to that 16:12:26 + HTML 5 Longdesc Reconsideration https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011May/0419.html 16:12:54 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011May/0419.html 16:12:57 JS: to reconsider reinstating longdesc 16:14:04 JS: the text subteam met and unanimously approved this request in a resolution. Also approved a resolution should last call be published without longdesc in the spec then there would be support for a formal complaint to the director to hold 16:14:25 JS: We do have a consensus document in the taskforce which is quite old. 16:14:55 JS: It does not mention anything about where the sub teams fit as we hadn't realised that is where most of the work would get done in subteams 16:15:11 JS: Procedural things happen in the task force 16:16:06 + +1.720.342.aacc 16:16:11 JS: Consensus procedures reflect expectations on where we started not where we are now. However it raises the prospect of questioning this statement. 16:16:42 can you hear me? 16:17:03 JS: We will put this to a vote in the taskforce vote. Assuming it is approved, either one of the resolutions then there would be a survey for three working days for people to comment on the topic 16:17:05 k 16:17:37 will call back in 16:17:46 - +1.720.342.aacc 16:18:02 +Rich 16:20:13 -Tim_Boland 16:20:24 JS: Any questions? 16:20:34 RS: They want us to vote again? 16:20:44 JS: Yes! On call and the survey 16:20:58 MaryJo has joined #PF 16:21:44 +Cynthia_Shelly 16:22:01 RS: I haven't looked at the overall voting on going to last call, but to me parts are incomplete. 16:22:07 JS: Yes this is to discuss 16:22:57 CS: will save my comments on content for tomorrow 16:23:17 + HTML 5 Last Call WBS https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/html5-last-call-poll/ 16:23:46 JS: The question is 8 different documents or so. Are each of them ready or not for last call publication 16:24:04 RS: What does it look like 16:24:19 SC: Last time I looked there were mostly yes or one or two abstein 16:24:24 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/html5-last-call-poll/ 16:24:45 cyns has joined #pf 16:25:00 RS: Usually I would expect it to be a real working draft and then move to a last call. I think there are things missing 16:25:27 JS: There is the poll and the next agendum is if we believe it should be published 16:25:41 + Does PF Approve HTML 5 Last Call? https://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html#coordination 16:25:51 HTML Charter Dependencies at: 16:25:53 https://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html#coordination 16:26:27 This lists the working groups that HTML is required to interact with and they should have advised us formally if they were going to do this publication 16:27:11 JS: We do have a say in whether we think this is ready as PF and as individuals if we are in the taskforce 16:28:17 JS: There is a call scheduled with Tim tomorrow to discuss the formal objection which has come up regarding longdesc. Sam posted how he saw some of the issues. 16:28:43 JS: He thought management needed to make a decision on how to proceed 16:29:23 JS: It wasn't so much that any particular feature was or wasn't in the spec, but what the document is, will it be called feature complete. 16:29:35 JS: to us it is clear that not everything is in the spec. 16:30:04 JS: Great chunk that is missing is the older settled technology and possibly not controversial any longer. 16:30:52 JS: It is important to the reputation of the organisation and of accessibility and if it is not feature complete then say so. Could we flag things that are missing? 16:31:34 JS: Could annotate what is missing and link to discussion and show it as an in process specification. But they want more feedback and on accessibility 16:31:39 +1 16:31:48 sorry Q+ 16:31:52 q+ 16:32:11 ack r 16:33:02 RS: Canvas - we have a decision and the chairs made a decision but there were a couple of things that were left out. They related to 508. We were asked to raise these but nothing happened 16:33:33 RS: We are missing is ability to provide bounds of an object so you can map it to an a11y API 16:33:54 RS: The technical solution to this is going to take a little longer. 16:34:25 RS: I put this to the list and I provided use cases 16:34:45 RS: When they say this is a 'last call document' ie all major features are there. I don't think it is. 16:34:48 q+ 16:35:00 RS: I think we need to say we need a thorough review of the document 16:35:23 RS: Does anyone disagree? 16:35:47 CS: It is sometimes a good idea to go to last call with open issues - wcag did. 16:35:58 CS: We can state up front what some of the issues are 16:36:09 RS: I need to make sure that is the purpose of this release 16:36:23 RS: It is not clear in the survey 16:36:27 CS: I would not be 16:36:34 CS: it would not be 16:36:52 s/I would not be// 16:37:47 RS: If they say we have issues and log issues that are remaining 16:37:53 JS: Test a consensus 16:38:26 JS: OK to publish even if they call it 'last call' as long as they say it is not feature complete for accessibility and we would want some things specifically listed 16:39:02 ASW: They seem to have a lot of bugs open 16:39:22 ASW: It would seem odd to go to last call with so many bugs open 16:40:16 JS: There is canvas, there is media 16:40:35 JS: There is still work to do 16:40:44 JS: What about other areas? 16:41:04 JS: Are ARIA mappings done 16:41:09 RS: not concrete 16:41:52 RS: in longdesc proposal we have added new requirements. 16:42:51 RS: They are good requirements, for example user agent being able to identify longdesc areas. 16:43:28 RS: We can agree in general that we are not feature complete. 16:44:08 RS: I am going to reopen an issue after last call as there are some discussions that have not been had 16:45:54 JS: We put the issue out for 48 hours before we declare a consensus. I think I can put out on the list 16:47:40 ASW: any areas that still have significant issues and disagreement should be flagged by editorial notes 16:48:08 JS: I will do this after the call to see if we have consensus by Friday. 16:48:28 JS: Taskforce meeting will include the two items from the text alternatives meeting 16:48:54 cyns has joined #pf 16:49:13 s/editorial notes/inline editorial notes/ 16:50:52 JS: We have been offered to flag inline and this will get more people looking at it and commenting on it which is valuable 16:51:12 RS: Problem is we probably won't be able to get the inline edits by Friday though 16:51:33 JS: The vote is due on Sunday and they want to publish on tues 16:52:16 -SallyC 16:52:34 zakim, who's here? 16:52:34 On the phone I see Mary_Joe, Janina, Andi_Snow-Weaver, Rich, Cynthia_Shelly 16:52:36 On IRC I see cyns, MaryJo, Andi, RRSAgent, Zakim, janina, richardschwerdtfe, trackbot 16:52:52 scribe: Andi 16:53:22 JS: individual ability because of our participation in the HTML WG - should do so and not hold back 16:53:41 JS: also charter dependency HTML has on PF - get to have a formal opinion 16:54:00 JS: this formal opinion is what I'll be sending out the 48 hour call for 16:54:15 CS: can we get the spec text ready? don't want to delay them 16:54:25 CS: if they say yes, we should be ready to provide them 16:54:39 JS: we should have the list tomorrow on the HTML task force meeting 16:54:51 JS: do we need to schedule another meeting or can we do it via e-mail? 16:55:05 CS: e-mail. Can everyone send their favorite issue to the PF list? 16:55:19 CS: and include the text of the editorial note 16:55:27 RS: no section for canvas yet 16:55:36 CS: probably should go at the top of the canvas section 16:55:46 JS: canvas note could include pointer to issue 131 16:56:09 CS: never seen links in editorial notes - seems okay - but might not be allowed 16:57:03 RS: like for Cynthia and Steve to go through section 3.2.6 to make sure it's all okay 16:57:18 RS: one example - still don't have text on how to process ARIA attributes 16:57:29 JS: it's our fault but it still should be there 16:57:43 JS: make sure that what we think is in the spec is actually there 16:58:03 thanks 16:58:14 -Rich 16:58:17 -Cynthia_Shelly 16:58:17 rrsagent, make minutes 16:58:17 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2011/05/18-pf-minutes.html Andi 16:58:18 -Janina 16:58:19 -Mary_Joe 16:58:25 -Andi_Snow-Weaver 16:58:27 WAI_PF()12:00PM has ended 16:58:28 Attendees were Janina, +44.121.665.aabb, Mary_Joe, SallyC, Tim_Boland, Andi_Snow-Weaver, +1.720.342.aacc, Rich, Cynthia_Shelly 16:58:34 zakim, bye 16:58:38 Zakim has left #pf 16:58:58 rrsagent, make minutes 16:58:58 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2011/05/18-pf-minutes.html Andi 17:00:43 rrsagent, make logs public 17:00:49 rrsagent, make minutes 17:00:49 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2011/05/18-pf-minutes.html Andi 17:04:32 Andi has left #pf