See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 15 April 2015
<janina> No responses
<Ryladog_> JS: Thee is no time to get a heatmbeat out. Our charter is up in two weeks
Janina indicates that it may be too late to publish a heartbeat draft at this point. No one disagrees.
Michael: in the absence of documents ready for review right now, it's highly unlikely we'll have time to publish.
Janina suggests it may be necessary, in order to make progress, to commit changes first and then review them subsequently. This way, people hav something concrete to respond to.
no one present from WebApps.
<janina> \zakim, next item
Janina raises the question whether there is general consensus in the group that WebApps could take up the work on Events.
Janina: Do we want APA to be able to write a normative spec for whatever WebApps doesn't take up.
Similarly for CSS with respect to user context?
<Ryladog_> JW: There are twp opinion. Task force with WAI/APA and other WebApps for Eveents and CSS fro medoia querries and some aspect s of User Context
<Ryladog_> JW: The other is that it would be devolved
James thinks Jason's summary is accurate and there are reasons why portions of IndieUI will and others won't work as currently proposed.
Some of them overlap with efforts of other groups and are being integrated into those.
He thinks it's necessary to cut losses with respect to what isn't taken up elsewhere.
Janina: if WebApps and CSS respectively were to pick up all of the work, is it uncontroversial that this would be acceptable?
James thinks we should encourage other working groups to pick up portions of it, where there is interest in doing the work.
James is undecided what to do with those aspects that aren't readily taken up by the other groups.
He thinks we should concentrate efforts on those aspects that are being picked up elsewhere.
James clarifies that he remains interested in achieving IndieUI objectives, but it doesn't seem for example that value request is going to be widely implemented by UAs.
Michael notes that we've been exploring other options to address the aspects that aren't absorbed into other groups, including rechartering and moving the work into another gorup.
James notes we could continue as we have done - specify the features and remove them if they are integrated into other specs. The security model is likely to go into CSS, for example, or could be going there, and this influences how we deal with those aspects of User Context that depend on te security model.
Michael: we have agreement that we want to work with CSS on the security model.
Janina: do we have an option to drive some set of features to specification of CSS and WebApps don't.
Michael: if all we're doing is incubating, maybe we should be an interest group rather than a working group.
If we or APA were to have the ability to publish, it has to be in the charter.
Janina: the concern then is whether it would draw objections.
James notes the loss of implementors who were originally represented in the task force as a significant problem in pursuing the work.
Joanie suggests an approach whereby the events would be taken up as a joint effort between WebApps and the ARIA owrk.
James notes that this might be more tractable and likely to be implmeented if limited to ARIA, as ArIA events.
Joanie suggests that an ARIA-based approach could be a fallback for whatever isn't taken up by WebAPPs.
Katie: inquires whether the remainder of the work should fall to APA if IndieUI goes away.
Janina notes that it's easier to add a deliverable to a charter than to keep the entire working group infrastructure going.
Hoewver, we could re-charter IndieUI and create task forces as we are able.
Michael's concern is that we would need to restore quarum in that case.
Michael: the low participation in the last 6-12 months suggests exploring other options.
James notes the challenge involved in making a single event model that works for all.
The comments he receives from implementors acknowledges these difficulties.
James suggests allowing the editing task force in WebApps to do its work, then seeing whether the approach taken there can be extended to incorporate the remainder of the IndieUI events work.
Michael: we want more flexibility
- we don't care who creates the spec or specs or what the
structure is. We're willing to have WebApps do it or to do it
ourselves otherwise. WebApps seem content for us to continue
working on IndieUI Events despite the overlap.
... a charter has deliverables; we could put in an escape
clause in case other groups take them over, but he isn't sure
that would be acceptable.
... if the events come into existence the charter requirements
are met - that seems to be the underlying idea.
James notes difficulties with some of the proposed events and indicates we could reduce the requirements. We could publish a heartbeat draft that is lower in scope. If this were imploemented we could recover momentum.
His example was dismiss request - as Michael puts it, as ginel interface with a few properties.
James notes the implementation work in WebKit - unfortunately there's no mechanism by which a user can cause the events to be dispatched.
A working example of one of the events would help to improve momentum irrespective of how the work is constituted thereafter in the W3C structure.
<Ryladog_> JS: James and Jason are looking up some things
<Ryladog_> MC: I see two edits since the last heartbeat
<Ryladog_> JC: Do we not have anything at Github fo IndieUI?
<Ryladog_> MC: We do, yes it is dash UI
<Ryladog_> JW: Is there time to add the info that will align with the schema.org metadata?
<Ryladog_> JW: Do we have time for that?
<Ryladog_> JW: If we dont I suppose we could......?
<Ryladog_> MC: We can propse to recharter if we only have two edits
<Ryladog_> MC: I think that rechartering is less difficult than most of the other avenues we have been looking at
<Ryladog_> MC: Events does not have any sub stan. edits
<Ryladog_> JS: But James is going to pull the continous Event
<Ryladog_> MC: We need a good explanation about why we are doing it
<Ryladog_> MC: We could publish both rright now before the end of this month
<Ryladog_> JC: We will need to identify that we have reduced the scope
<Ryladog_> JW: Later we can re-inctrease the scopre
<Ryladog_> MC: It is GitHub.io
<Ryladog_> JC: keep - pull some of the discrete action that have a continous counterpart
<Ryladog_> JC: We can keep delete and dismiss
<Ryladog_> JC: We can keep expand
<Ryladog_> Joanie: valuechange
<Ryladog_> JC: In order to get a valuechange on a slider we need to use a continuous
<Ryladog_> JS: We cannot send a mixed message
<Ryladog_> JC: Everything has to be supportaable - we have to remove anything continuos
<Ryladog_> JC: rrotatotion, scroll, valuechange, move will have to be cut
<Ryladog_> JC: We can keep expand and collapse - they are discrete
<Ryladog_> MC; We seem to have an emerging consensus to keep IndieUI but to contain the scope and to publish 2 heartbeats
<Ryladog_> JC: Lets get this draft out then lets re-cahrter for another year
<Ryladog_> MC: Not only do we only have two weeks left - we need a decision
<Ryladog_> JC: I definitly think Indie-UI should stay out of PF/APA
<Ryladog_> MC: We may have a consensus to re-charter for 1.0 for less thann 3 years with a clear ststaement that wwe intend to work closely with WebApps and CSS
<Ryladog_> You have violeent agreement from me
Jason would like to see the issues with continuous events taken up by the working group (post 1.0 if necessary) under the next charter.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140 of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: jasonjgw Inferring Scribes: jasonjgw Present: Janina Michael Katie Joanie James_Craig Katie_Haritos-Shea Found Date: 15 Apr 2015 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/04/15-indie-ui-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]