IRC log of er on 2008-03-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:17:41 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #er

13:17:41 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/03/12-er-irc

13:17:46 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #er

13:17:53 [shadi]

zakim, this will be ert

13:17:53 [Zakim]

ok, shadi; I see WAI_ERTWG()9:30AM scheduled to start in 13 minutes

13:18:00 [shadi]

meeting: ERT WG

13:18:04 [shadi]

chair: Shadi

13:18:33 [shadi]

agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2008Mar/0010.html

13:18:47 [shadi]

agenda+ Comments on WCAG 2.0 by CarlosI

13:18:58 [shadi]

agenda+ WCAG defintion of "Web Page"

13:19:08 [shadi]

agenda+ Does Content-in-RDF need updating?

13:26:30 [JohannesK]

JohannesK has joined #er

13:29:32 [Zakim]

WAI_ERTWG()9:30AM has now started

13:29:38 [Zakim]

+??P7

13:29:50 [shadi]

zakim, ? is really me

13:29:50 [Zakim]

+shadi; got it

13:30:49 [carlosI]

carlosI has joined #er

13:31:11 [Zakim]

+JohannesK

13:32:55 [CarlosV]

CarlosV has joined #er

13:33:39 [Zakim]

+JohannesK.a

13:34:00 [shadi]

zakim, johannesk.a is really CarlosV

13:34:00 [Zakim]

+CarlosV; got it

13:34:40 [Zakim]

-CarlosV

13:35:30 [Zakim]

+CarlosV

13:36:18 [Zakim]

+Carlos_Iglesias

13:36:32 [shadi]

agenda?

13:37:33 [shadi]

scribe: CarlosI

13:37:46 [shadi]

scribenick: carlosI

13:37:56 [shadi]

zakim, take up agendum 1

13:37:56 [Zakim]

agendum 1. "Comments on WCAG 2.0 by CarlosI" taken up [from shadi]

13:38:51 [carlosI]

SAZ: believe WCAG WG have completed comments managment

13:39:47 [shadi]

http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/

13:40:01 [carlosI]

SAZ: focus on follow-up of CI's comments if necessary

13:40:59 [carlosI]

SAZ: there's a diff version linked on a top, a little more verbose but better to follow changes

13:41:18 [carlosI]

SAZ: WCAG 2 is proceeding to CR

13:41:55 [carlosI]

SAZ: usually not substantial changes at CR

13:42:53 [carlosI]

SAZ: metadata and definition of web page may need more work

13:45:10 [carlosI]

SAZ: are people happy with the new version in general?

13:45:33 [carlosI]

CI: concerns about definition of web page and validation procedures

13:45:46 [carlosI]

SAZ: is an important question

13:45:58 [carlosI]

SAZ: try to report as soon as possible

13:46:42 [shadi]

zakim, take up next

13:46:42 [Zakim]

agendum 2. "WCAG defintion of "Web Page"" taken up [from shadi]

13:47:36 [carlosI]

SAZ: recap: we identified some use cases were URI is not sufficient to identify a resource

13:48:36 [carlosI]

SAZ: we can record what is received from the server but not what get the user at the end

13:49:13 [carlosI]

SAZ: specially in cases when several resources are rendered together

13:49:30 [carlosI]

SAZ: is a problem from the user perspective, not a technicall one

13:49:41 [carlosI]

SAZ: eg. web apps and frames

13:49:58 [carlosI]

SAZ: looked at the DOM recording

13:50:19 [carlosI]

SAZ: DOM classes and/or DOM serialization

13:51:26 [carlosI]

CV: the same discussion comes up many times internally

13:51:43 [carlosI]

CV: don't convice WCAG have all we need

13:51:59 [carlosI]

CV: about this

13:52:49 [carlosI]

SAZ: looks related with what CI have said just before

13:53:46 [carlosI]

SAZ: maybe this work is not EARL's task

13:54:06 [carlosI]

SAZ: we're not restricted to EARL nor to have to do it now

13:54:47 [carlosI]

SAZ: but may need an idea on how to solve it

13:55:16 [carlosI]

CV: user's view depends on UAs

13:56:26 [carlosI]

SAZ: we have focused on content

13:56:40 [carlosI]

SAZ: with an heuristic approach

13:57:37 [carlosI]

SAZ: is something we at EARL haven't addressed yet or an WCAG issue?

13:58:35 [carlosI]

ACTION: CI and CV to elaborate on the mailing list about web page definition, conformance and evaluation issues

14:00:51 [carlosI]

CI: think is not related to EARL, more related to differences between real current evaluation process and WCAG web page definition

14:01:31 [carlosI]

CI: the only thing that may be included in EARL could be some kind of states recording or tracking

14:02:07 [shadi]

zakim, take up next

14:02:07 [Zakim]

agendum 3. "Does Content-in-RDF need updating?" taken up [from shadi]

14:03:19 [carlosI]

SAZ: comment about the draft on this thread

14:03:33 [carlosI]

SAZ: believe there's agreement on some comments

14:03:49 [carlosI]

SAZ: others may need further discussion

14:04:09 [shadi]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2008Feb/0013.html

14:04:34 [carlosI]

SAZ: comments from CI that opened the thread

14:04:53 [carlosI]

SAZ: let's go one by one

14:05:17 [carlosI]

SAZ: first one is a long discussion about character encodings

14:06:46 [carlosI]

JK: looks like we have agreement on a Content property for character encoding

14:07:25 [carlosI]

JK: a new scenario

14:07:37 [carlosI]

JK: the character string is created on memory

14:15:40 [carlosI]

JK: you create a sequence of characters

14:16:04 [carlosI]

JK: don't have to care about encoding right now

14:16:25 [carlosI]

JK: you are able to create TextContent from this without any problem

14:16:47 [carlosI]

JK: you may want to create also a base64 representation

14:17:02 [carlosI]

JK: then the result is the byte sequence

14:20:02 [carlosI]

CV: what if the declared content enconding is wrong

14:20:49 [carlosI]

SAZ: JK mentioned it's a general issue, not specific of Content specification

14:21:27 [carlosI]

SAZ: is this a proposal of new scenario?

14:22:41 [carlosI]

JK: you record the character encoding at the HTTP headers level

14:23:02 [carlosI]

SAZ: what if you get it from the content metadata at the document itself?

14:23:31 [shadi]

s/SAZ/CV

14:24:48 [carlosI]

SAZ: the more important one is the character encoding you use

14:27:23 [carlosI]

SAZ: CV, why don't write down your scenario?

14:28:18 [carlosI]

JK: next comment is about using the specification terminology

14:28:34 [carlosI]

JK: don't mind changing

14:28:44 [shadi]

action: CV send character encoding scenario to the mailing list

14:29:22 [carlosI]

RESOLUTION: adjust terminology to the XML specification

14:30:13 [carlosI]

JK: next one is about a HTML content to specify the type but no additional properties

14:30:37 [carlosI]

SAZ: don't look like a priority

14:32:10 [carlosI]

CI: it's useful to allow easy distinction

14:32:49 [carlosI]

SAZ: you have this information on headers

14:32:56 [Zakim]

-CarlosV

14:33:47 [carlosI]

SAZ: don't want to repeat everything

14:37:18 [carlosI]

SAZ: let's continue next week

14:37:31 [Zakim]

-JohannesK

14:37:38 [Zakim]

-Carlos_Iglesias

14:37:39 [Zakim]

WAI_ERTWG()9:30AM has ended

14:37:40 [Zakim]

Attendees were shadi, JohannesK, CarlosV, Carlos_Iglesias

14:40:27 [shadi]

zakim, bye

14:40:27 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #er

14:40:34 [shadi]

rrsagent, make logs world

14:40:38 [shadi]

rrsagent, make minutes

14:40:38 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/03/12-er-minutes.html shadi

14:40:39 [shadi]

rrsagent, make logs world

14:40:44 [shadi]

rrsagent, bye

14:40:44 [RRSAgent]

I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/12-er-actions.rdf :

14:40:44 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: CI and CV to elaborate on the mailing list about web page definition, conformance and evaluation issues [1]

14:40:44 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/12-er-irc#T13-58-35

14:40:44 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: CV send character encoding scenario to the mailing list [2]

14:40:44 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/12-er-irc#T14-28-44