See also: IRC log
<taki> scribe: TK
<taki> scribeNick: taki
<dape> scribe: dape
<scribe> scribeNick: DP
<dape> scribeNick: dape
<scribe> scribe: DP
TK: ... At most 2 people on the
side. Don and Javier showed interest joining remotely
... sometimes very productive to meet even with few
people
... one option Carine mentioned is: 1st submit form to meet and
later re-consider
DP: if we do not conflict with WoT meetings I expect also some Siemens people have interest
DB: will try to attend by
phone
... w.r.t. interest of joining WoT group.. I wonder about the
possible relationships that might occur.
<brutzman> We are getting a lot of good work done at a steady pace, even with a small number of people now.
<brutzman> First law of engineering: "if it isn't broken, don't fix it."
DP: No decision yet.. not even formally discussed
<caribou> we can also have a 1 day meeting
<brutzman> Nevertheless we might report back to WoT group once or twice a month, or perhaps have some other informal regular interaction.
<brutzman> That would likely benefit both groups over the long term.
<caribou> or a breakout session if there are in the agenda
TK: this discussion should be
raised before TPAC
... could talk about this in Montreal F2F
<brutzman> If someone in EXI can go to WoT TPAC meeting, we might offer a report.
DP: Taki and I are attending the WoT F2F
<brutzman> Dave Raggett and LIam Quinn both are likely to give us good advice in these matters.
DB: Dave has definitely a good advice... also w.r.t. AMP
<brutzman> Our primary goal should likely be to keep making progress, and also to continue outreach so that others might engage and participate.
TK: Can we indicate that we meet at TPAC also indicating avoid conflict with WoT?
DP: I think it makes sense... we don't get an answer about joining WoT the next days
DB: time till 15th of April to decide
<brutzman> Just to be clear about overall strategy - I was not urging that we "join" the WoT group, rather would think that simply commencing a regular dialog would be helpful. Attending another working-group's meeting is always informative.
DB: otherwise we can also organize break-out sessions on Wednesday
DP: having a break-out session on Wednesday makes sense either way to me
<caribou> last year's breakout sessions program: https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2015/SessionIdeas
<caribou> also CGs are invited to have 2-hrs meetings this year
TK: will answer the questionnaire
before next telecon
... Note: April 12th there will be no EXI telecon.. (due to WoT
F2F)
DP: published first tests on
github, https://github.com/EXIficient/exificient-for-css
... also added some test files
... think we should experiment with more test files and add the
missing part
... i think having a solution for CSS, JSON and HTML5 makes
sense to show during a break-out session at TPAC
TK: plan to experiment
DP: some missing parts like
@media
... feel free to send me some test files..
CB: might be able to share some...
DB: is there a CSS test-suite?
<brutzman> Found it: Cascading Style Sheets Official W3C Test Suites https://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/Overview.en.html
DP/CB: test files are more unit test files... not really realistic
<brutzman> Unit tests are good for compatibility coverage. It is also possible to aggregate stylesheets into something larger using the @import directive.
<brutzman> Interesting link on the CSS Test Suites page: Test the Web Forward, W3C's one stop shop for Open Web Platform testing. http://testthewebforward.org
TK: In your last email about annotation you say "grouping".. not sure what you mean
DP: given that an annotation is linked to a type I wondered whether it makes sense to pre-populete the table for a given type
TK: instead of one global tables many tables?
DP: Correct
... also maybe we want to have the annotation more general
w.r.t to other types.. not only enumerations
TK: agree. Enumerations usually don't need pre-populated values
DP: need to agree on syntax
... or put the enumeration syntax in xsd:annotation element
TK: thing in xsd:annotation get not parsed by Xerces
DP: correct
TK: Partitioning by type is a possibility
DP: yes, but I am personally not convinced yet
TK: We could also consider one
global table and many smaller tables
... let's continue discussion in emails
DP: plan to run some tests with the extended string across TTFMS test suite
TK: Do not expect any benefit without shared strings
DP: It depends... for example RDF testfiles have lots of URIs and splitting those uris in smaller parts helps a lot to reduce the size
TK: Daniel proposed to change the order of AT production selection
<scribe> ... new order makes more sense
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: also for OpenEXI
DP: same for EXIficient
TK: one other thing is
terminology .. d) and e) are AT(*)
... in EXI spec we don't qualify [schema-typed value]
... c) and d) need to be updated with removing [schema-typed
value]
DP: Was also wondering whether we should flip b) with c)..
TK: a) and b) next to each other makes more sense... would keep the "new" list as it is
DP: will update the spec...
... think we are complete. I do not have any open point
anymore.
TK: currently last call
... consider moving it to CR
CB: last call and CR are the same now
TK: moving to CR is also easier?
CB: re-publishing CR is easier
TK: after the change we should have a final review before moving to CR
DP: How is the timing for interop tests?
CB: it is CR
... moving out of CR requires interoperability
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144 of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/relations/relationships that might occur./ Succeeded: s/1day/1 day/ Succeeded: s/fiels/files/ Succeeded: s/DB:/CB:/ Succeeded: s/may/many/ Found Scribe: TK Found ScribeNick: taki Found Scribe: dape Inferring ScribeNick: dape Found ScribeNick: DP WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <DP> ... Found ScribeNick: dape Found Scribe: DP Scribes: TK, dape, DP ScribeNicks: taki, dape, DP WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: CB DB DP TK brutzman caribou dape exi joined scribeNick taki trackbot You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 29 Mar 2016 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/03/29-exi-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]