See also: IRC log
CS: a few things that need clarification
... testElement, elementName, and specReference are child nodes of
testElements
CI: testElements was designed according to the
WCAG 2.0 Baseline approach
... we kept it until we see what happens with WCAG 2.0
... still a pending decision
... time to move on, now that we have a clear view of how the WCAG 2.0
concept looks like
... need to take a decision and update the metadata accordingly
CS: the test elements are very useful for
filtering the test sample
... WCAG WG looking at creating data to define Accessibility Supported
Technologies
... if we drop this, we may drop data that WCAG WG may be interested in
SAZ: seems to be a real issue, we have not
revisted this concept since the change of Baseline
... however, AST still under discussion in WCAG WG
... may be best to wait for PR stage of the guidelines until the approach is
more stable
... and we understand the requirements
... we can drop this data at anytime, it is not hindering our work right
now
... maybe we should add the sub-nodes of testElements in the metadata
... knowing that it is under discussion and could be dropped at any time
<scribe> ACTION: CS update the metadata document to reflect the subnodes under testElements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-tsdtf-minutes.html#action01]
CS: added some notes in the metadata to help me
keep track of the updated test samples
... between what is uploaded and what is on the BenToWeb site
SAZ: ok to keep these internal notes for now,
but should clarify that it is an internal note
... knowing that they will be dropped when our work is finalized
CI: agree that internal notes are fine, but think we are setting a bad example to misuse elements for a different purpose than it was intended for
SAZ: could we drop this information in the description element?
CI: maybe better to add a specific element for
this purpose
... this could be shown or hidden depending on the audience or usage
... but keep that information separate
SAZ: how much additional work is this?
CS: not much work
SAZ: should give a heads-up to the group first
<scribe> ACTION: CI send a heads-up to the group about adding a new element for internal/development comments [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-tsdtf-minutes.html#action02]
CS: comment on pointers in test sample 18
CI: seems to be inconsistent usage of pointers, need a minimum set of rules on how to use them
CS: would be good to have some rules
CI: could write some
SAZ: doesn't this relate to the Pointers-in-RDF document?
CI: it does, and might be good to address this somewhere
<scribe> ACTION: SAZ bring this discussion into the ERT WG discussion on Pointers-in-RDF document, to see if these type of rules belong in there [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-tsdtf-minutes.html#action03]
CS: comment on relative vs absolute URI's in test sample 30
SAZ: understand that relative ones are easier
for portability
... but absolute ones are easier to work with for people not logged on the
server
CS: can we keep until we have the HTML interface on W3 servers?
[no objections]
CS: question on validity in test sample 2
SAZ: might be best to check offline
SAZ: confirmed is July 15
... seem we have low availability from 21 july until end august
... let's figure out week by week