See also: IRC log
<janina> genda+ preview agenda with items from two minutes
<scribe> scribe: fesch
js: this is the last meeting of PF! When we come back in January we will be APA.
jn: csun in march, anyone planning on a face-to-face?
rs: it is up in the air whether ARIA will meet at CSUN.
jf: I have heard someone is trying to organize something on the Saturday (hackathon), so any f-f should be before
js: we need 60 days in advance to arrange a face-to-face... unlikely
cs: jn: in process to join
js: still 3 weeks...
mc: will be new mailing lists, at
some point pf mailing list will end (posts), tracker is being
migrated (new year)
... issues will start with a large number (2000) or
something
... go to the new home pages... look for new infrastructure on
new home pages
js: will have a CFC for a new
decision policy, list policy will mirror for ARIA, unless
someone has an problem with that... hearing no problems, we
will mirror ARIA policy
... HTML task force will do minimum changes...
mc: HTML a11y task force - confusing now in media WG, was in HTML WG...
lw: HTML WG -> media WG
COGA moved to APA...
js: HTML TK needed to update docs... I thought we would be changing it to APA
lw: will have to find out
mc: in terms of changing work
statements and should get formal approval for WG, wonder if we
could get a joint template, were under WAI....
... need to do that for all task forces...
... discusses names of task forces (whether to have WAI... in
the name)
action-1751
<trackbot> action-1751 -- Léonie Watson to Review push api http://www.w3.org/tr/push-api/ -- due 2015-12-16 -- OPEN
<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/actions/1751
<MichaelC> action-1751 due 13 Jan 2016
<trackbot> Set action-1751 Review push api http://www.w3.org/tr/push-api/ due date to 2016-01-13.
mc: janina, james has actions
<MichaelC> CSS Writing Modes Level 3
mc: do we need to review
this?
... taking notes in the wiki
js: wonder if we need someone to walk us through each spec... and another to scribe in wiki... plus normal scribe
<MichaelC> Content Security Policy: Embedded Enforcement
jf: seems to be really low level...
<MichaelC> Content Security Policy: Cookie Controls
rs: cookies are a privacy issues wrt accessibility
mc: wonder if we should look at it...
jf: not sure how important cookies are for work Greg is doing...
jn: app would need to support those cookies...
<JF> From the Draft Spec:
<JF> 4. Security Considerations 4.1. Existing Cookies Note that the mechanisms defined here do not protect against cookies that already exist in a user’s cookie store. Those cookies are delivered along with the HTTP request, before Content Security Policy can be delivered and applied. It is possible that future work like [CSP-PINNING] might enable these kinds of a priori restrictions, but, even then, CSP should be seen as a mitigation strategy, layered on top of filter
rs: if they use local data storage may have used a flow manager... may not be using cookies any more
mc: we should review it
jf: may be a question to the spec author
js: may only have potential... I
wouldn't ask them if there is an accessibility issue or
not
... could ask Katie
mc: lets give Katie an action, just so someone has an action
js: can reassign if need be
<MichaelC> ACTION: Katie to review http://www.w3.org/TR/csp-cookies/ Content Security Policy: Cookie Controls to see if a11y issues or not - due 20 Jan 2016 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-pf-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1762 - Review http://www.w3.org/tr/csp-cookies/ content security policy: cookie controls to see if a11y issues or not [on Katie Haritos-Shea - due 2016-01-20].
<MichaelC> action-1762?
<trackbot> action-1762 -- Katie Haritos-Shea to Review http://www.w3.org/tr/csp-cookies/ content security policy: cookie controls to see if a11y issues or not -- due 2016-01-20 -- OPEN
<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/actions/1762
mc: after migration PF tracker
will become uneditable, you will have to look in APA tracker,
will update IRC associations...
... that should be transparent
js: we kept some items in our tracker - a lot of OLD actions, some we never closed, but at least a couple dozen to return to when we can - wondering whether MC and I should take a first pass or do it as a group?
mc: I was only going to migrate
open actions
... would be good to cleanup but by default open actions will
migrate
js: I will take a pass....
mc: would have to be cleaned up after migration if not before...
cs: is that for PF and ARIA actions?
mc: yes - some will migrate to APA others to ARIA....
cs: sticking with tracker? not going to github or...?
mc: yes, good integration with
IRC, too useful to abandon
... we use github and moved away from bugzilla...
cs: OK just wanted to know where they are going
js: IRC integration is really useful...
js: we have an open CFC for MFC
extensions, discussed them at TF
... some folks wanted to bring up longdesc again
... please respond either positive or negative
lw: which working group is owned by?
js: media... was traditionally
joint with HTML TF
... our comments are not particularly technical, we asked for a
longdesc or possibly use accessible SVG... some folks want a
more generic statement
... but a11y folks are the folks that give advice how to do
that
... first diagram is a png
... we have API's being defined but not much plain text (prose)
to introduce the sections...
... issue raised whether this is the place for suggesting
alternative media... no not in this spec
... would be useful to have an overview of how W3C spec fit
together...
jf: I weighted in on longdesc, has a complex graphic, needs a description how it does it, I don't care how it does it. Needs a description.
js: I don't think using a CFC to complain about longdesc gets in the way, they can ask to have the issues re raised...
jf: what we should have said is the image needs a long description (not longdesc)...
js: we are offering to help solve the compliant
lw: If we described one solution
we should have described multiple solutions for achieving the
goal
... John's approach probably wouldn't raise a complaint
js: if people feel that we should take that approach that is fine, then a +1 with the change... would be fine... right now I have to rely on the silence
jf: I will take an action to write a long description of the image...
js: do we have a consensus? need more +1s or -1s on record
rrs agent, make minutes
<JF> ACTION: JF to write up the longer text description for the MSE spec Due January 16, 2016 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-pf-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1763 - Write up the longer text description for the mse spec due january 16, 2016 [on John Foliot - due 2015-12-23].
PF is now adjourned!
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144 of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/will become editable/will become uneditable/ Succeeded: s/we should have described every possible approach how to solve the problem/If we described one solution we should have described multiple solutions for achieving the goal/ Found Scribe: fesch Inferring ScribeNick: fesch Present: janina Janina LJWatson fesch Joanmarie_Diggs JF JaeunJemmaKu Found Date: 16 Dec 2015 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-pf-minutes.html People with action items: jf katie WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]