13:28:33 RRSAgent has joined #er 13:28:33 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/03/05-er-irc 13:28:43 Zakim has joined #er 13:28:55 zakim, this will be ert 13:28:55 ok, shadi; I see WAI_ERTWG()8:30AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes 13:29:02 meeting: ERT WG 13:29:08 chair: Shadi 13:29:39 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2008Mar/0006.html 13:30:21 agenda+ Comments on WCAG 2.0 by CarlosI 13:30:35 agenda+ Updated "Content-in-RDF" Editor's Draft 13:30:42 Updated "HTTP-in-RDF" Editor's Draft 13:30:48 agenda+ Updated "HTTP-in-RDF" Editor's Draft 13:30:50 JohannesK has joined #er 13:31:02 agenda+ RDFa Last Call Working Draft 13:31:17 agenda+ Next meeting 13:31:23 zakim, code? 13:31:23 the conference code is 3794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), shadi 13:31:33 WAI_ERTWG()8:30AM has now started 13:31:40 +CarlosV 13:31:50 Zakim, CarlosV is really JohannesK 13:31:50 +JohannesK; got it 13:32:12 +[IPcaller] 13:32:23 zakim, ipcaller is really Shadi 13:32:23 +Shadi; got it 13:35:10 carlosI has joined #er 13:37:13 +??P14 13:37:32 zakim, ? is really CarlosI 13:37:32 +CarlosI; got it 13:37:40 regrets: CarlosV 13:37:54 agenda? 13:39:18 zakim, take up agendum 1 13:39:18 agendum 1. "Comments on WCAG 2.0 by CarlosI" taken up [from shadi] 13:39:49 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20071218/ 13:40:31 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20071218/Overview-diff.html 13:40:48 http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/issuereports/responses/issue_disposition_report20071211.php 13:42:35 SAZ: latest WCAG 2.0 Editors Draft available, also a diff version comparing changes to last draft 13:42:52 ...also a disposition of their draft responses to the comments received so far 13:43:12 ...we should look at the draft responses and check if we may have any follow-up 13:44:58 JK: how do we record test results of Web pages that could be in different states 13:45:29 ...for example CarlosI mentioned Ajax and other Web applications 13:45:38 ...or in my opinion framesets too 13:46:06 ...need to means to record the state of the Web page 13:46:19 ...not part of the EARL language itself 13:46:26 ...don't see a way to do that 13:48:35 SAZ: framesets a little different scenario from web applications 13:49:01 ...usually information is fetched from the server and could be addressed by HTTP-in-RDF 13:49:42 JK: definition of web page in WCAG 2.0 is restricted to non-embedded elements 13:50:17 ...so combinations of resources, like in a frameset, would not be considered a single web page 13:53:16 [a non-embedded resource obtained from a single URI using HTTP plus any other resources that are used in the rendering or intended to be rendered together with it by a user agent] 13:54:13 JK: content of the individual resources could change 13:54:44 s/would not be considered/would be considered 13:55:56 CI: typically a frameset has a single content frame 13:56:58 ...don't usually need to cover all combinations of all pages on a web site 13:58:11 JK: agree, but you are interpreting the WCAG WG 13:59:09 ...the definition does not address the current *state* of the Web page 13:59:31 ...we may not have a mean to record the *state* of a frameset 14:05:28 SAZ: a frameset would cause a sequence of HTTP requests to obtain a combination of [HTML] resources, that together form a "Web Page" 14:05:48 ...wouldn't HTTP-in-RDF give you the necessary information? 14:06:35 JK: it would tell you which resources were loaded into the frameset, but would not tell you in which frameset it was loaded 14:07:01 ...this could make a difference towards the result of the test 14:07:58 ...there used to be xframes extension, not sure if that could be useful 14:09:53 SAZ: seems that we record the interaction with the server using HTTP-in-RDF 14:10:11 ...but we don't record the interaction with the user in the browser 14:10:33 ...something to identify what action caused an HTTP request or other event 14:10:50 ...can we model this? do we want to do this at the current time? 14:11:23 CI: also need to record the context of the frames or web application at the given time 14:12:07 ...but not necessary on the EARL (results layer) 14:12:28 JK: agree, don't need the user interaction at the results layer 14:12:39 ...but the current state 14:14:29 SAZ: for web applications, would DOM content in the "Content-in-RDF" be sufficient (forgetting frames for now) 14:14:53 CI: it would be, but we don't have a "DOM-in-RDF" model (just a dump currently) 14:18:07 CI & JK: don't have DOM content class 14:19:13 SAZ: could serialize it as XML and dump it into an XML content class? 14:24:37 http://www.rosettacode.org/w/index.php?title=DOM_XML_Serialization 14:26:03 CI: DOM representations may look different depending on user agent 14:26:41 JK: want to record the elements/nodes that we have, to describe how the document looks like 14:27:46 ...for example DOM Level 3 has an interface for serializing documents 14:29:43 ...problem is converting back from DOM serialization to its original form 14:30:17 ...for example an HTML document may generate issues when using an XML parser 14:37:40 action: JK send brief document and the serialization of it, to demonstrate DOM usage and recording in XML content 14:38:14 action: CI & SAZ look more closely at DOM serialization for recording the state of Web applications 14:41:04 -Shadi 14:41:07 -JohannesK 14:41:30 zakim, drop carlosi 14:41:30 CarlosI is being disconnected 14:41:31 WAI_ERTWG()8:30AM has ended 14:41:33 Attendees were JohannesK, Shadi, CarlosI 14:41:36 zakim, bye 14:41:36 Zakim has left #er