26 Sep 2006


See also: IRC log


Shadi, Christophe, Chris, Michael, CarlosI, CarlosV, Daniela, Tim
CarlosV, Christophe


Continue discussion on TCDL

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]

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: everyone to review the link on the agenda (and above) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-tsdtf-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.127 (CVS log)
$Date: 2006/09/26 14:37:00 $