11 November, 1999
4:00 - 5:00 PM EDT
Longfellow Bridge: (617-252-1038)
Status: Not done. Will work with Wendy + Charles next week.
Status: Not done.
Status: Will wait until new charter ready.
WC: Not easy while no consensus.
Action WC: See how XML is handling whitespace. If they are not, get them thinking about it.
Discussed 28 October: Use PICS for conformance claims. Question: is this a sufficient way to claim conformance? If UAs can't deal with metadata, might end up with "closet conformance".
JW: I recall that at 28 October meeting there was consensus that metadata could be used in addition to one of the mechanisms specified in the Recommendation. The outstanding issue was whether it sufficed alone.
WC: The conformance claim must transform gracefully.
CMN: People might very well want to conform without putting a logo on the page (e.g., Microsoft, which might conform).
CL: Same for Canadian govt. They won't indicate W3C conformance directly. May point indirectly to WAI conformance.
CMN: The additional benefit of a metadata assertion is that you can build accessible archives of pages that claim conformance. Indirections such as that of the Candian govt can respond to queries by inference engines.
CL: I presume that the Canadian govt would have no problem with PICS statements.
Proposed: Put examples of metdata conformance clauses in Techniques.
JW: Problem is that the Guidelines don't allow for other conformance mechanisms.
Proposed: Issue an erratum.
CMN: Daniel Dardailler has a set of PICS statements.
JW: Does anyone have RDF statements?
Action Charles: Create a schema for conformance (with Dan Brickley).
Consensus: Once the WG has reviewed this, add to Techniques and erratum.
WC: Aim to have deliverables available in March/April since CSUN and next WWW conference.
WC: We need to produce a report end of November about the group's direction. I think we should solicit input from the list about this.
See Wendy's: Wish List:
Resolved: No, since there are formats for the Web: html, xml. If you wish to provide another format in addition to these, that's fine.
Action Editors (and announce results to list).
Action Wendy: Clean up the open issues list.
WC: Based on a comment by Dave Clark. Is 20% realistic to use? A bad idea? We need to allow an exception for image dimensions since it won't work.
CMN: Using proportional sizing for raster-based image formats means that you may get weird shapes that make them more or less incomprehensible.
Action Wendy: Add to erratum /techniques that for raster-based, absolute dimensions ok. For scalable vector graphics percentages may be useful.
Action Editors: Add to erratum that the Note after 10.2 only applies to text controls (not checkboxes or radio controls).
IJ: I propose that the Chairs, not Wendy, do the first draft.
Action Chuck: Draft a first draft of report with Gregg by next Wednesday.
Copyright © 1999 W3C (MIT, INRIA, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply.