IRC log of er on 2006-05-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:58:23 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #er
13:58:23 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/05/03-er-irc
13:58:29 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #er
13:58:37 [shadi]
zakim, this will be ERT WG
13:58:37 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled near this time, shadi
13:58:41 [shadi]
zakim, this will be ERT
13:58:41 [Zakim]
ok, shadi; I see WAI_ERTWG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
13:58:43 [ChrisR]
ChrisR has joined #er
13:58:46 [Zakim]
WAI_ERTWG()10:00AM has now started
13:58:50 [shadi]
meeting: ERT WG
13:58:51 [Zakim]
+??P25
13:59:23 [shadi]
agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2006May/0002.html
13:59:27 [shadi]
chair: Shadi
13:59:34 [shadi]
scribe: Nick
14:00:00 [Zakim]
-??P25
14:00:01 [Zakim]
+??P25
14:00:03 [Zakim]
+Shadi
14:00:40 [shadi]
zakim, p25 is really David
14:00:40 [Zakim]
sorry, shadi, I do not recognize a party named 'p25'
14:00:44 [shadi]
zakim, ? is really David
14:00:44 [Zakim]
+David; got it
14:02:00 [Zakim]
+Klaus/Johannes/Thomas
14:02:07 [CarlosI]
CarlosI has joined #er
14:02:12 [Zakim]
+??P13
14:02:17 [carlos]
carlos has joined #er
14:02:40 [shadi]
zakim, ? is really Chris
14:02:40 [Zakim]
+Chris; got it
14:04:19 [niq]
niq has joined #er
14:06:07 [Zakim]
+ +34.98.439.aaaa
14:06:22 [JibberJim]
shadi, did you not see my regrets?
14:06:37 [JibberJim]
I'm stuck in holland with no network and in another meeting.
14:06:37 [shadi]
zakim, aaaa is really CarlosI
14:06:37 [Zakim]
+CarlosI; got it
14:06:49 [shadi]
oh jim, sorry, missed that
14:06:52 [niq]
Zakim won't talk to me
14:07:05 [shadi]
regrets: Jim
14:07:40 [niq]
Zakim won't talk to me *2
14:07:47 [shadi]
:(
14:08:06 [shadi]
scribe: Johannes
14:08:16 [shadi]
scribenick: JohannesK
14:08:27 [JohannesK]
agenda+ EARL snippets proposal
14:08:31 [niq]
I can hear him, but he ignores my conference code, and he also ignores my "star zero for w3c admin assistence"
14:08:43 [JohannesK]
agenda+ Explicit vs blanket assertions
14:08:53 [JohannesK]
agenda+ URI-in-RDF vs single URI
14:08:58 [shadi]
nick, stay on the line...
14:09:04 [JohannesK]
agenda+ WCAG 2.0 Last Call
14:09:17 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
14:09:24 [niq]
aha, made it
14:09:49 [shadi]
zakim, ipcaller is really Nick
14:09:49 [Zakim]
+Nick; got it
14:10:21 [shadi]
zakim, take up agendum 1
14:10:21 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "EARL snippets proposal" taken up [from JohannesK]
14:14:09 [niq]
saz: encoding (raw or base64) as separate elements, or properties of a content element
14:14:41 [niq]
niq: like the flexibility of the RFC822 approach
14:15:53 [niq]
niq: MIME is tried-and-tested
14:18:12 [JohannesK]
JK: what we need is a transformation method to transform the bytes we got over the network into characters; and I think base64 is enogh for this task
14:18:32 [JohannesK]
s/enogh/enough
14:20:28 [niq]
q+
14:20:47 [JohannesK]
JK: I would like to use this approach in HTTP-in-RDF as well
14:21:36 [JohannesK]
JK: if EARL writing tool can use whatever transformation method it likes, EARL reading tool will have to implement several as well
14:22:16 [JohannesK]
SAZ: generic approach is more flexible and future-proof
14:22:36 [shadi]
ack niq
14:22:52 [JohannesK]
NK: ACK to SAZ
14:25:06 [JibberJim]
generic approach is unneccesarilly solving problems we don't really need
14:25:14 [niq]
You say "text" vs "base64". But "text" isn't really well-specified, at least outside of plain ascii
14:25:54 [niq]
I'm OK with non-generic approach (though prefer generic) provided it's well-specified
14:26:19 [Zakim]
-CarlosI
14:27:19 [JohannesK]
SAZ: others?
14:27:25 [JohannesK]
CR: still thinking
14:27:33 [Zakim]
+CarlosI
14:27:41 [JohannesK]
CV: + for text/base64
14:29:02 [JohannesK]
CI: + text/base64
14:31:19 [JohannesK]
Resolution: two content properties, one for text, one for binary
14:31:52 [JohannesK]
Resolution: binary content is base64-encoded
14:34:05 [niq]
q+ to say Johannes is right, but that's not the whole story
14:34:15 [shadi]
ack niq
14:34:15 [Zakim]
niq, you wanted to say Johannes is right, but that's not the whole story
14:34:32 [JohannesK]
JK: we don't need to report a specific character encoding for textContent
14:36:57 [niq]
Snippets included from a document must be converted from the character encoding of a document snippeted to the charset of the EARL report. Tools traditionally get that wrong (c.f. mail-over-the-web systems)
14:40:09 [Zakim]
-Nick
14:40:20 [niq]
grrr
14:42:33 [JohannesK]
JK: some dikussion about characters, bytes, character encodings ...
14:43:20 [JohannesK]
s/dikussion/discussion
14:44:19 [shadi]
saz: 2 possibilities: 1. use the encoding of the original EARL report which is the simplest and easiest approach
14:45:13 [shadi]
saz: 2. use the encoding of the remote Web resource, in which case we would need to record this encoding as well (and thus add complexity to processors and parsers)
14:46:16 [niq]
2. only works if all snippets are CDATA
14:47:40 [JibberJim]
JibberJim has joined #er
14:49:35 [JohannesK]
JK: the only connection between character encoding used for the EARL report and the character encoding used to create the character from the resource byte stream is that there must be a mapping for the characters to be put into the snipping
14:49:42 [JohannesK]
s/snipping/snippet
14:51:18 [JohannesK]
CV: #2 doesn't make sense
14:54:48 [JohannesK]
Resolution: people agree with JohannesK that there is no problem with characters in text snippets
14:55:03 [shadi]
zakim, close agendum 1
14:55:03 [Zakim]
agendum 1, EARL snippets proposal, closed
14:55:04 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
14:55:05 [Zakim]
2. Explicit vs blanket assertions [from JohannesK]
14:55:13 [shadi]
zakim, take up agendum 4
14:55:13 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "WCAG 2.0 Last Call" taken up [from JohannesK]
14:56:03 [JohannesK]
SAZ: any objections that ERT WG should not review WCAG 2.0?
14:56:20 [JohannesK]
CV: have problem with deadline
14:57:05 [JohannesK]
SAZ: everyone is welcome to comment
14:57:42 [JohannesK]
SAZ: we need to review from test tool implementor's POV
14:58:23 [JohannesK]
SAZ: we should focus on the "Understanding" doc
14:58:56 [Zakim]
-Chris
14:59:30 [JohannesK]
SAZ: expect comments on ERT mailing list
15:01:14 [JohannesK]
SAZ: I want a group's position
15:03:52 [JohannesK]
ACTION: everyone to read the "Understanding WCAG 2.0" document until next week's meeting
15:04:13 [JohannesK]
SAZ: send comments to ERT list
15:04:25 [Zakim]
-David
15:04:26 [Zakim]
-Shadi
15:04:27 [Zakim]
-Klaus/Johannes/Thomas
15:05:37 [Zakim]
-CarlosI
15:05:39 [Zakim]
WAI_ERTWG()10:00AM has ended
15:05:41 [Zakim]
Attendees were Shadi, David, Klaus/Johannes/Thomas, Chris, +34.98.439.aaaa, CarlosI, Nick
15:06:03 [shadi]
zakim, bye
15:06:03 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #er
15:06:11 [shadi]
rrsagent, make logs world
15:06:31 [shadi]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:06:31 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/05/03-er-minutes.html shadi
15:07:21 [shadi]
rrsagent, make logs world
15:07:39 [shadi]
rrsagent, by
15:07:39 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'by', shadi. Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:07:40 [shadi]
rrsagent, bye
15:07:40 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/03-er-actions.rdf :
15:07:40 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: everyone to read the "Understanding WCAG 2.0" document until next week's meeting [1]
15:07:40 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/03-er-irc#T15-03-52