See also: IRC log
CV: CV, CS, and SAZ had brief call about
exntesion to help finalize TCDL work
... TCDL 2.0 will remain a BenToWeb spec on BenToWeb namespace
... validation of TSD TF metadata will happen according to TCDL 2.0
... and additionally a second step will be needed to check the usage of the
TCDL 2.0 is according to TSD TF requirements
... current proposal for the second step would be Schematron but there may be
other mechanisms
SAZ: initial proposal to have two separate
schemas (BenToWeb one and TSD TF one) has flaws
... the proposal is to have one schema, and a second step for checking the
metadata content
CI: i am concerned that referencing TCDL 2.0
will imply endorsement by W3C
... we only need specific parts of it, why not just use it as we like
... we just need metadata to store our information
... we are spending too much time on this part
SAZ: shouldn't compare TFs, the other was a
tools database
... these tests may have a large impact, and we should spend adequate time
thinking about the metadata
... referencing the spec does not imply endorsement
CI: people will imply endorsement, even if you
don't like it
... and there are contravesial things in there
SAZ: assuming that the TSD TF documentation
clarifies that there is no endorsement of the TCDL 2.0
... and assuming that there is a mechanism to check that the metadata
published on W3C reflects this usage
... are you still concerned?
CI: worried but can live with the solution
... it is a contraversial and sensitive area
SAZ: note that TCDL 2.0 does not make assumptions on user testing, it only provides a mechanism to describe tests that are carried out by users
CI: still a tricky area in web accessibility
RESOLUTION: review TCDL 2.0 to make sure it contains the TSD TF requirements, then document how TCDL 2.0 will be used in the context of the TF (with special care of any potential endorsement misinterpretation)
CV: discussion extensibility model still
pending
... model B will lead to a more chaotic metadata
... we may need to add extension points
... but all over the place may be tough
CS: in BenToWeb we tried to add new elements as optional to avoid compatibility issues
SAZ: third model would be to keep the BenToWeb schema as the master, then use schematron or something else to verify the content of the metadata
TB: sounds like an interesting option
CS: i agree
CV: second stage to ensure that the task force restrictions are applied
RESOLUTION: adopt BenToWeb
extension model (model A of extension points)
... adopt a two-stage model to validate the metadata according to the
BenToWeb schema, then a second verification step to ensure that the TSD TF
contraints are adhered
SAZ: will there be a way to add other pointers in the location element?
CS: yes
CV: we are not there yet, section "technologies"
CS: "baseline" not finalized by WCAG WG yet (or
reopened)
... seems to be inline to exclude specific parts of a technology
SAZ: what is the impact of the changes to baseline by WCAG WG on the tests development
CS: hard to judge at the moment
SAZ: worried about implications
... maybe can try to develop non-baseline dependent tests first
CV: doesn't really impact TCDL 2.0 as much, more the test development
<scribe> ACTION: everyone to review the link on the agenda (and above) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-tsdtf-minutes.html#action01]