See also: IRC log
<MichaelC> scribe: Ryladog
JS: CFC discussion
... Do you have any suggested changes to agenda?
... News?
... Payments Subteam WBS
<Ryladog_> JS; Katie can you look at the new times
<Ryladog_> JS: Nothong new to add. Looking at who we want to meet with.Too many. I am prioritizing. First is CSS, then Security
<Ryladog_> JS: Then we ill talk about horizontal review but may be on Wed
<Ryladog_> JS: We are not the only group that do horizontal review - will talk with others about those commonalities
<Ryladog_> JS: Questions?
<Ryladog_> MC: 2069 on Janina
<Ryladog_> JS: I did look at that, getting a URI for us
<janina> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-apa/2016Mar/0030.html
<Ryladog_> JS: That email is the last conversation. I think we need to look at the spec to see if we are happy with what they put in
<Ryladog_> JS: We suggested SVG, and am not sure if they did that. I think someone else wjo can see to review if the description is sufficient
<Ryladog_> MC: Is this from them?
<Ryladog_> JS: Yes. Chaals jumped in to respond
<Ryladog_> MC: We now want to get feedback from other on if the description is suffiicant
<Ryladog_> MC: I suppose I could take the action but it will take at least a week
<Ryladog_> JS: A week might be oK
<Ryladog_> MC: In principle a week would be OK I think
<Ryladog_> JS: Reassign 2069 to MC
<Ryladog_> MC: 2063 on Janina
<Ryladog_> JS: Internationalization - leave it open for now
<janina> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-apa/2016Jul/0040.html
<Ryladog_> JS: Here is a pointer, I did my action, this is the email. Is it adequate?
<Ryladog_> JS: Does that meet our desire?
<Ryladog_> MC: I would say yes. They may not like the wording exactly but they can wordsmith
<Ryladog_> KHS: Can we look now?
<Ryladog_> JS: Yes
<Ryladog_> KHS: It look good to me
<Ryladog_> MC: Then should we take it to a CFC?
RESOLUTION: Take Janina's draft email for action 2067
RESOLUTION: Take Janina's draft email to CfC for action 2067
<MichaelC> Custom Elements
<Ryladog_> MC: Custom elements - we said in march that this is bog and scary. Shan suggested Steve F to check it. But I dont think we did anything about it
<Ryladog_> JS: It went to who?
<Ryladog_> MC: Web paltform
<Ryladog_> MC: Should we create an action to check with Leonie and Steve?
<MichaelC> ACTION: Janina to check with Léonie and Steve on Custom Elements https://www.w3.org/TR/custom-elements/ [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/27-apa-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2075 - Check with léonie and steve on custom elements https://www.w3.org/tr/custom-elements/ [on Janina Sajka - due 2016-08-03].
<Ryladog_> MC: Next encrypted media extension action from 3 weeks ago for John to see if GH has been opened
<Ryladog_> JS: CR right?
<Ryladog_> MC: Yes
<Ryladog_> MC: No earlier than 2 August - any day
<Ryladog_> JS: OK reassign that to me
<Ryladog_> JS: We were expecting some language to be added to that spec - if its hter we may be done
<MichaelC> Linked Data Notifications
<Ryladog_> MC: Linked Data Notifications, a First PWD
<Ryladog_> MC: Shane would say we dont worry about this
<Ryladog_> JS: I agree
<Ryladog_> MC: Media Source Extensions: We just looked at that
<Ryladog_> JS: Who joined?
<Ryladog_> SHane: Im here
<MichaelC> ODRL Information Model
<Ryladog_> MC: ODRL Model
<Ryladog_> MC: Permissions and Obligations Exprressions
<Ryladog_> JS: A way of doing DRM
<Ryladog_> SM: Digital rights
<Ryladog_> MC: the acronym is not clear
<Ryladog_> JS: they should do it, but not worth being a group comment. This is old, not new, used by Dasiy
<Ryladog_> JS: Used by OEBF
<Ryladog_> MC: This document is a First Public WD published last week - it is Rec track
<Ryladog_> MC: It is a new dependency speficication
<Ryladog_> JS: We would like our digital book folks to look at
<MichaelC> ODRL Vocabulary & Expression
<ShaneM> Submitted an issue about the expansion of ODRL
<Ryladog_> MC: I assume our siggestion might be the asme for these two
<Ryladog_> MC: My guess is that we dont need to worrry about this - but I have a niggling thought
<Ryladog_> JS: I see it as proprietary - I think Daisy uses it - it might be used by Library of Congress is using this - which I am happy with
<Ryladog_> JS: It might be more applicable now in other media situation - now maybe applicable to movies etc
<Ryladog_> JS: Having trouble calling up 15 year old memories.
<Ryladog_> JS: Put this on me until the end of August, make it the 24th
<MichaelC> ACTION: Janina to review http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-odrl/ ODRL Vocabulary & Expression and http://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-model/ ODRL Information Model - due 24 Aug [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/27-apa-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2076 - Review http://www.w3.org/tr/vocab-odrl/ odrl vocabulary & expression and http://www.w3.org/tr/odrl-model/ odrl information model [on Janina Sajka - due 2016-08-24].
<Ryladog_> MC: POE Use cases and Requirments
<MichaelC> POE Use Cases and Requirements
<Ryladog_> SC: Same working group
<MichaelC> ACTION: Janina to review POE https://www.w3.org/TR/poe-ucr/ Use Cases and Requirements - due 24 Aug [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/27-apa-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2077 - Review poe https://www.w3.org/tr/poe-ucr/ use cases and requirements [on Janina Sajka - due 2016-08-24].
<Ryladog_> MC: It went to too quicjly we were not given the opportuntiy to submit a Use case - or review a draft - on Janina
<Ryladog_> MC: XML Inclusion 1.1
<MichaelC> XML Inclusions (XInclude) Version 1.1
<Ryladog_> MC: My view is we dont need to review
<Ryladog_> JS: I agree as does Shane
<MichaelC> XProc 2.0: An XML Pipeline Language
<Ryladog_> MC: XPROC 2.0 and XML Pipeline Langaug
<MichaelC> XProc 2.0: Standard Step Library
<Ryladog_> MC: Pipeline language for operation to be performed on documents
<Ryladog_> MC: Step Library descrribeds the Standard Step Vocabulary
<Ryladog_> JS: No interest for us
<Ryladog_> MC: Could it interfere with transcribing tools?
<Ryladog_> JS: We talked about last week. Maybe there is more work for Jannina. Should we run comments to WGs through a formal CfC?
<Ryladog_> JS: To be clear it is a group position. It is potentially additional work
<Ryladog_> JS: There seems to be no length, maybe that time frames does matter. Recently we are having this discussion because we have not done that here
<Ryladog_> JS: We wanted to keep red tape lo
<Ryladog_> JS: We should at least do a trial. I expect we will use this one through next week
<Ryladog_> KHS: I think doing a trial is fine
<Ryladog_> JS: That is a decision.
<ShaneM> +1 to not needing a CfC to decide to use our CfC policy
<Ryladog_> MC: Your abandoning the WG not adding any more input?
<Ryladog_> MC: I thought that we would still say something. We do not need to add a CfC too a trail, but after it might make sense
<Ryladog_> MC: I never read it as we need to go through CfC for every WG comment
<Ryladog_> JS: Lets do it after we trial for a while. Someone suggested until the end of the year. I think that is reasonable
<Ryladog_> JS: That is still in my drafting editor. I iwll have it finished when MC comes back
<MichaelC> Draft CSS charter
<Ryladog_> MC: One small update, the charter has a new statement that....
<Ryladog_> JS: Well good, I will be able to support that. That is very helpful to hear
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) Found Scribe: Ryladog Inferring ScribeNick: Ryladog Present: Janina Joanmarie_Diggs Katie_Haritos-Shea MichaelC Mary_Jo_Mueller Rich_Schwerdtfeger ShaneM Regrets: Cynthia Fred Gottfried Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-apa/2016Jul/0038.html Found Date: 27 Jul 2016 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/07/27-apa-minutes.html People with action items: janina[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]