Skip to content

2024‐08‐23

Francis Storr edited this page Aug 23, 2024 · 2 revisions

DRAFT Minutes for meeting 23 August 2024

Attendance (9): Alastair Campbell, Giacomo Petri, Francis Storr, Ken Franqueiro, Lori Oakley, Patrick Lauke, Scott O'Hara, Steve Faulkner, Gundula Niemann

Regrets: Bruce, Mike

Announcements

Following standard agenda:

  • Review ‘For discussion’ items
  • Review ‘Drafted’ items (30 min), either:
    • i. move back to In progress, with more work to do
    • ii. move to Ready for approval, if there is general agreement the issue is sufficiently resolved
    • iii. leave in Drafted, if discussion was not concluded satisfactorily
  • Review issues closed and project items closed
  • Review ‘To do’.
  • Time permitting, items of interest to participants, including open discussions.

For discussion

Reflow

Scott is actively watching the document for new comments and suggestions. It feels like it might be approaching the time for a PR for it, which would be a good thing. Scott can commit to getting it to a PR by next Friday (2024-08-30).

Drafted

The following non-substantial PRs, that deal with typos, grammar, and removing un-used content, were reviewed and moved into Ready For Approval: 4025, 3941, 4034, 4031, 3939.

Ready for approval

Drafted column

Open Discussion

Add note about the scope of 1.4.5 Images Of Text

PR 4021. Discussion over this counter proposal to the original PR, 3773. We decided to close PR 3773.

Add explanation of what "automatic" means in 2.2.2 and 1.4.2

PR 4012. Discussion on what "automatic" means and when does something automatically start? Discussed the implications of activation on hover and that hovering can't be taken as an intentional user request to play content. Discussed issues relating to screen magnification and voice-activation users. Updated Audio Control; Pause, Stop, Hide; and Animation From Interactions with proposed updated content relating to content that starts not as the result of an intentional action by the user. This will be a substantive change. Giacomo signed up to review it.

Add more information/links to HTML-related obsolete messages

PR 4027. Discussion on how to deal with the "obsolete from" link. Should we say "HTML5", "HTML Living Standard", add the year the element was deprecated, etc.?