12:12:16 RRSAgent has joined #tsdtf 12:12:16 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/10/03-tsdtf-irc 12:12:21 Zakim has joined #tsdtf 12:12:29 zakim, this will be TSD TF 12:12:29 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled near this time, shadi 12:12:32 zakim, this will be TSD 12:12:32 ok, shadi; I see WAI_TSDTF()8:30AM scheduled to start in 18 minutes 12:12:43 chair: Christophe 12:12:55 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2006Oct/0000.html 12:13:10 agenda+ Continue discussion on TCDL 12:13:18 agenda+ Start of test production phase 12:13:53 regrets: CarlosV, CarlosI, Tim, Shane 12:21:08 Christophe has joined #tsdtf 12:26:40 Daniela has joined #tsdtf 12:28:48 WAI_TSDTF()8:30AM has now started 12:28:56 + +43.732.246.8aaaa 12:29:46 +Shadi 12:30:07 zakim, aaaa is really Daniela 12:30:07 +Daniela; got it 12:30:12 +Christophe_Strobbe 12:30:18 Michael has joined #tsdtf 12:30:49 ChrisR has joined #tsdtf 12:31:36 +[IPcaller] 12:31:47 Vangelis has joined #tsdtf 12:32:02 zakim, ipcaller is really Chris 12:32:02 +Chris; got it 12:33:16 +Vangelis_Karkaletsis 12:34:02 +Cooper 12:34:47 scribe: Michael 12:34:52 scribenick: Michael 12:35:02 zakim, take up agendum 1 12:35:02 agendum 1. "Continue discussion on TCDL" taken up [from shadi] 12:35:52 cs: decided last week to use BenToWeb extension model 12:36:10 ... separate documents about TCDL in Task Force 12:36:26 ... approved global structure of TCDL and formal messaging section 12:38:06 ... change of dc:date to internal date, has some implications mentioned on list 12:38:56 saz: BenToWeb date different? 12:39:18 cs: 12:39:50 ... TCDL 1.1 date has same type as dc:date in DC 2.0 12:40:11 saz: provided use XSI param 12:41:08 cs: restricts DC date, so need to define in schema and then refer to it in all instances 12:41:16 ... same problem with dc:description 12:41:46 saz: is it a problem? 12:41:59 cs: just pointing it out so people don't wonder what xsi:type doing there 12:42:29 http://bentoweb.org/refs/TCDL2.0/ 12:42:56 saz: document above is complete TCDL spec plus usage of task force 12:43:01 ... but intention to separate them out? 12:43:03 cs: yes 12:43:15 saz: TCDL 2.0 will be standalone spec that can be used by others 12:43:21 ... we'll describe how we use it for our context 12:43:44 ... question about rddl file 12:44:05 cs: should point back to task force doc 12:44:34 saz: just want to make clear TCDL is standalone with its own merits 12:45:53 cs: issue of technologies re baseine 12:45:59 s/baseine/baseline 12:46:23 ... possible to add pointers to exclude specs from baseline 12:46:27 ... is that an issue? 12:46:52 http://bentoweb.org/refs/TCDL2.0/#baselines 12:47:36 s/exclude specs/exclude parts of a spec 12:48:33 saz: looks pretty flexible 12:48:46 ... may adjust how we use it depending on what WCAG does 12:48:49 q+ 12:49:16 ack michael 12:50:01 mc: way to add features to a spec that aren't actually there? e.g. embed 12:50:10 cs: point to a private spec that adds it 12:50:57 mc: pointer clear that it's an extension spec? 12:51:02 cs: reference both 12:51:53 ... can add example 12:52:24 saz: sounds good for now, we may need to return to this as WCAG evolves baseline 12:53:48 ... notice in test element you use namespace, but use xlink in technicalSpec 12:53:57 cs: need to add attribute to technicalSpec? 12:54:04 saz: not now, but may need to come back to this 12:55:02 RESOLUTION: global structure and formal metadata sections of TCDL approved 12:55:48 RESOLUTION: technology section of TCDL approved 12:56:08 http://bentoweb.org/refs/TCDL2.0/#edef-testcase 12:56:37 cs: test case added dc:description with same xsi:type impact 12:57:17 make requiredTests optional? 12:57:25 saz: yes, should do that 12:57:47 ... not clear on expertGuidance 12:58:11 cs: added recently for people who validate test cases 12:59:04 ... optional so we can omit 12:59:30 saz: can imagine providing guidance, but should be in technique, not developed by task force 13:00:13 ... if we need something to explain how test should be evaluated, should be taken to WCAG WG 13:01:55 mc: is this targeted to evaluators or to test case consumers? 13:02:15 saz: expertGuidance seems targeted to manual testers 13:02:29 ... should be in the technique - test procedure or elsewhere 13:03:05 cs: expertGuidance specific to test case, while technique might be more general, that can be how we decide when it goes where 13:03:51 ... e.g., information about testing hover changes on a link for color contrast, which too detailed to appear in technique 13:04:25 saz: example points to need for more test cases 13:04:38 ... let's keep for now, but don't want it to turn into interpretation on techniques 13:04:47 cs: will add note to TCDL documentation 13:06:21 cs: suggested to use RDF for files element, but unsure how to do 13:07:20 saz: need ability to add request parameters 13:07:46 cs: can create HTTP headers with name-value pairs 13:11:40 ACTION: Christophe to discuss with Johannes using RDF for HTTP, determine if it's needed now, or what future compatibility we may need, and discuss on list 13:13:43 RESOLUTION: no objections to accepting testCase section with changes discussed in call and pending investigation into file section 13:14:13 http://bentoweb.org/refs/TCDL2.0/#edef-rules 13:15:04 cs: rules section, pointers to success criteria etc. 13:16:06 ... adding new techniques was only open issue 13:16:12 ... examples has one now 13:16:53 RESOLUTION: accept rules section 13:17:15 cs: namespaceMapping had no issues 13:17:32 RESOLUTION: accept namespaceMapping 13:18:21 cs: rulesets had no issues on list 13:18:52 ... keep in mind rule sets are XML files, important not to drop exisitng rules, only add new ones as WCAG draft updated 13:18:57 http://bentoweb.org/refs/TCDL2.0/#chapt-rulesets 13:20:39 cs: in order to keep validity with previously defined tests 13:21:01 RESOLUTION: accept rulesets section 13:21:29 cs: next up is to write the usage document 13:21:43 ... have taken TCDL, removed what we're not using in task force 13:22:05 ... but it duplicates a lot from TCDL, would like suggestions on making it shorter (unless we want a long one) 13:22:57 saz: it should be small, simple about required/optional/usage of elements 13:23:06 ... don't need examples etc., that's already in the spec 13:23:35 ACTION: Christophe to post a revised usage document 13:24:02 saz: uisng EARL pointers in location? 13:24:23 cs: have added extension to allow usage from EARL namespace 13:25:40 saz: can add further elements from EARL namespace? 13:25:47 cs: current extension allows that 13:26:16 ACTION: Shadi to send example of how to use EARL pointers in TCDL 13:26:49 saz: we should use EARL as much as we can, and will probably want to generate EARL reports from test cases 13:28:39 cs: TCDL now pretty much finalized (pending a couple issues) 13:28:47 zakim, close this item 13:28:47 agendum 1 closed 13:28:48 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 13:28:49 2. Start of test production phase [from shadi] 13:29:50 -Vangelis_Karkaletsis 13:29:52 -Shadi 13:29:54 -Chris 13:29:55 ChrisR has left #tsdtf 13:29:55 -Daniela 13:29:56 -Christophe_Strobbe 13:29:57 -Cooper 13:29:58 WAI_TSDTF()8:30AM has ended 13:29:59 Attendees were +43.732.246.8aaaa, Shadi, Daniela, Christophe_Strobbe, Chris, Vangelis_Karkaletsis, Cooper 13:30:18 zakim, bye 13:30:18 Zakim has left #tsdtf 13:30:34 rrsagent, make logs world 13:30:49 rrsagent, make minutes 13:30:49 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/10/03-tsdtf-minutes.html shadi 13:30:51 rrsagent, make logs world 13:30:56 rrsagent, bye 13:30:56 I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/03-tsdtf-actions.rdf : 13:30:56 ACTION: Christophe to discuss with Johannes using RDF for HTTP, determine if it's needed now, or what future compatibility we may need, and discuss on list [1] 13:30:56 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/03-tsdtf-irc#T13-11-40 13:30:56 ACTION: Christophe to post a revised usage document [2] 13:30:56 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/03-tsdtf-irc#T13-23-35 13:30:56 ACTION: Shadi to send example of how to use EARL pointers in TCDL [3] 13:30:56 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/03-tsdtf-irc#T13-26-16