IRC log of er on 2007-06-13
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 13:51:07 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #er
- 13:51:07 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/06/13-er-irc
- 13:51:12 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #er
- 13:51:18 [shadi]
- zakim, this will be ert
- 13:51:18 [Zakim]
- ok, shadi; I see WAI_ERTWG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 9 minutes
- 13:51:25 [shadi]
- meeting: ERT WG
- 13:51:29 [shadi]
- chair: Shadi
- 13:51:59 [shadi]
- agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007Jun/0032.html
- 13:52:07 [shadi]
- regrets: Johannes
- 13:52:18 [shadi]
- agenda+ Status update on documents for review
- 13:52:35 [shadi]
- agenda+ HTTP-in-RDF: "simplified" approach
- 13:52:43 [shadi]
- agenda+ HTTP-in-RDF: date properties for timestamping
- 13:52:51 [shadi]
- agenda+ EARL 1.0 Schema: Test Mode
- 13:59:35 [Zakim]
- WAI_ERTWG()10:00AM has now started
- 13:59:37 [Zakim]
- +Shadi
- 14:00:15 [shadi]
- zakim, drop shadi
- 14:00:15 [Zakim]
- Shadi is being disconnected
- 14:00:16 [Zakim]
- WAI_ERTWG()10:00AM has ended
- 14:00:17 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Shadi
- 14:00:35 [shadi]
- zakim, call shadi-617
- 14:00:35 [Zakim]
- ok, shadi; the call is being made
- 14:00:36 [Zakim]
- WAI_ERTWG()10:00AM has now started
- 14:00:36 [Zakim]
- +Shadi
- 14:00:54 [shadi]
- zakim, drop shadi
- 14:00:54 [Zakim]
- Shadi is being disconnected
- 14:00:55 [Zakim]
- WAI_ERTWG()10:00AM has ended
- 14:00:56 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Shadi
- 14:01:01 [shadi]
- zakim, code?
- 14:01:01 [Zakim]
- the conference code is 3794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), shadi
- 14:01:41 [Zakim]
- WAI_ERTWG()10:00AM has now started
- 14:01:48 [Zakim]
- +Shadi
- 14:03:57 [CarlosI]
- CarlosI has joined #er
- 14:05:17 [Zakim]
- +??P22
- 14:05:42 [shadi]
- zakim, ??p22 is really CarlosI
- 14:05:42 [Zakim]
- +CarlosI; got it
- 14:05:56 [Reinhard]
- Reinhard has joined #er
- 14:07:08 [Zakim]
- +Reinhard_Ruemer
- 14:07:54 [shadi]
- regrets: Johannes, CarlosV
- 14:08:25 [shadi]
- scribe: Reinhard
- 14:08:31 [shadi]
- agenda?
- 14:08:50 [shadi]
- zakim, take up agendum 1
- 14:08:50 [Zakim]
- agendum 1. "Status update on documents for review" taken up [from shadi]
- 14:09:10 [shadi]
- response to FOAF 0.9: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007Jun/0030
- 14:09:54 [Reinhard]
- saz: response was sent to foaf group, on which is worked on by foaf group
- 14:10:29 [Reinhard]
- saz: foaf is getting more stable
- 14:12:28 [Reinhard]
- ci: how are the properties "surname", "family_name" work in international environments (does everybody understand the same under "family_name"
- 14:13:17 [Reinhard]
- saz: emphasize that we need foaf name especially and not the derivatives
- 14:14:02 [shadi]
- mobileOK survey 1: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007Jun/0031.html
- 14:14:16 [shadi]
- mobileOK survey 2: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007Jun/0033.html
- 14:15:13 [Reinhard]
- saz: survey 1 is resolutions on the previeous working draft and the resolutions presented by the mobileOK group
- 14:17:25 [Reinhard]
- saz: survey 1 is an internal survey to get feedback from our group and collect the information
- 14:18:06 [Reinhard]
- saz: I will put together the result of survey 1 and we will discuss them next week
- 14:18:35 [Reinhard]
- saz: both surveys are due to next tuesday (19th June)
- 14:18:43 [shadi]
- s/results of survey 1/results of survey 1 and survey 2
- 14:20:10 [shadi]
- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/32094/mOK_LCWD_response/
- 14:21:25 [Reinhard]
- saz: if you agree with resolution, then accept it. If EVERYBODY agrees, there is no need for further discussion.
- 14:22:35 [shadi]
- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/32094/MOKreview/
- 14:23:16 [Reinhard]
- saz: survey two is for commenting the latest draft.
- 14:23:41 [Reinhard]
- saz: we will collect data and send it to mobileOK working group
- 14:25:55 [Reinhard]
- saz: put all your comments in the drafted format into the textbox
- 14:26:09 [shadi]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2007AprJun/0038
- 14:26:24 [shadi]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007Jun/0034.html
- 14:26:48 [shadi]
- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/32094/WCAGreview/
- 14:27:26 [Reinhard]
- saz: everybody in the group should review the wcag2.0 draft and also fill out the survey
- 14:28:22 [Reinhard]
- saz: comments related to ERT (conformace section, testability of the guidelines) need to be highlited
- 14:29:28 [Reinhard]
- saz: TODO: mobileOK reading and fill out survey and until 26th we all should look at wcag2.0 and fill out the survey also
- 14:29:49 [shadi]
- s/until 26th/until 19th
- 14:30:09 [shadi]
- s/fill out the survey also/fill out the survey by 26th
- 14:30:30 [shadi]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007May/0026
- 14:30:42 [shadi]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007May/0023
- 14:31:29 [Reinhard]
- saz: earl and powder will be topic again in the weeks after
- 14:31:54 [shadi]
- s/earl and poweder/earl guide and powder use-cases
- 14:32:03 [shadi]
- zakim, take up next
- 14:32:03 [Zakim]
- agendum 2. "HTTP-in-RDF: "simplified" approach" taken up [from shadi]
- 14:32:22 [shadi]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007May/0024
- 14:33:01 [shadi]
- http:MessageHeader
- 14:33:01 [shadi]
- |- http:fieldName (rdfs:Literal)
- 14:33:01 [shadi]
- |- http:headerName (predefined httph:HeaderName resource)
- 14:33:01 [shadi]
- |- http:fieldValue (rdfs:Literal or http:HeaderElement)
- 14:33:51 [shadi]
- question: is "accept" == "AcCePt"?
- 14:35:12 [Reinhard]
- saz: when you convert from fieldName to headerName you loose information. For some tools it makes sense to distinguish between the two versions
- 14:35:55 [Reinhard]
- saz: if too
- 14:37:31 [Reinhard]
- s/if too /this approach could also be repeated for the status-code element also
- 14:39:32 [Reinhard]
- ci: i have discussed with johannes. With the new approach we have the problem to keep information equally (that the values are the same)
- 14:39:58 [Reinhard]
- ci: it is a consistency issue, which is very important
- 14:41:50 [Reinhard]
- ci: problem with literals is, how to check the validity. Literals are for typpes of information, that is completly open, not for a closed ste of values
- 14:43:27 [Reinhard]
- saz: i saw accept headers with values all in small letters but also with capital letters first.
- 14:43:58 [Reinhard]
- saz: literal value is the normative one.
- 14:44:48 [Reinhard]
- saz: literals are harder to automatically query.
- 14:45:52 [Reinhard]
- saz: tools are differnt (some care about capitalisation, some don't)
- 14:49:55 [Reinhard]
- saz: you can only provide a literal value if the value consits with the specification
- 14:50:59 [Reinhard]
- ci: there needs to be a rule which clarifies, the appropriate use for predefined header values
- 14:51:25 [Reinhard]
- ci: e.g. when it conforms to the respective RFC
- 14:52:59 [Reinhard]
- saz: it would be a good direction to use it in the next draft
- 14:53:49 [Reinhard]
- RESOLUTION: Go ahead with this approach for now
- 14:54:09 [shadi]
- zakim, take up next
- 14:54:09 [Zakim]
- agendum 3. "HTTP-in-RDF: date properties for timestamping" taken up [from shadi]
- 14:54:15 [shadi]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007Jun/0013
- 14:55:52 [Reinhard]
- saz: johannes proposed dateSubmitted and dateAccepted, but there was disagreement on the list. We should use dc:date
- 14:57:05 [Reinhard]
- RESOLUTION: We use dc:date for timestamping in request and response
- 14:58:59 [Zakim]
- -Reinhard_Ruemer
- 14:59:03 [Zakim]
- -Shadi
- 14:59:04 [Zakim]
- -CarlosI
- 14:59:05 [Zakim]
- WAI_ERTWG()10:00AM has ended
- 14:59:09 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Shadi, CarlosI, Reinhard_Ruemer