<scribe> scribe: becka11y
<Thaddeus> presnt+
charles: we have sortable table
with all values (thanks to Roy)
... you can sort by value and notice that there are duplicates
that might cause problems. For example, add and ad under
destination; also chat, email, help are duplicated
... that was the reason for putting together this table so we
could find these duplicates and determine if they cause
issues
... does anyone else have concerns with the duplicates?
Lisa: we do know that people confuse settings, this reinforces the problem with one attribute name that can take multiple values
Charles: happy that the duplicates are made more obvious and we will be able to keep in mind as we progress
<CharlesL> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Prototypes-with-data-dash-*-(Take-2)
Charles: incorrect url
above.
... first url is incorrect
... JF feels data-field is redundant because we are putting it
on fields already; JF found that purpose was a better
alternative; things that require text don’t lend themselves to
being put into purpose; he proposes 4 additional attributes
(see link for examples)
... we agree more work is needed on data-symbol
<Roy> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Prototypes-with-data-dash-*-(Take-2)
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Protoypes-with-data-dash
Charles: follow link Lisa added above, then on right hand side find the link with title prototypes with data dash * (Take 2)
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://www.w3schools.com/tags/att_data-.asp
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn/HTML/Howto/Use_data_attributes
Lisa: JF was concerned with the data- with two items was a micro syntax; If I search for data- I can find other examples that also use double dash strings
Charles: agree that it is not an issue; but there are no W3C examples that use double dash; I also don’t agree that the double dash is a micro syntax
<Thaddeus> data-attribute1-attribute2 is technically valid
Lisa; see it’s use in the wild so not to worried about it
I remember Leonie agreeing with it being a micro syntax
Lisa: Leonie didn’t necessarily agree it was a micro syntax
Charles: don’t see it as a big issue we can use camel case
Lisa: it is just a name, a micro syntax requires parsing; I think we can move ahead with that
charles: I think JF gave really good examples, what is wrong with this proposal?
Lisa: ... by saying data-alt-numberfree we are educating people that this is another type of alt text
I don’t like the long attribute names; we were told to try and limit to 1-3 only; I think it wil lmake more work for us later on to streamline them
Charles: currently there are
folks that have concerns about adding alt
... Lisa’s proposal has multiple attributes as well, we don’t
know which ones will be taken up by the larger community; if
they are, we can go back to the browser vendors with evidence
that they are needed
... I don’t think we can accomplish what we want without
multiple attributes or without going to a micro syntax
<Thaddeus> +1
Lisa: concerned that by continuing to debate we are losing implementors; Can we put this out to survery, perfer, can live with; can’t live without; we need to move on
Becka11y: perhaps be need to limit our scope rather than trying to solve the entire problem at once in the first release
Charles: agree with the survey so we can vote on it an make progress
Becka11y: concerned that we are moving to fast; yes we have implementors but if they aren’t building to a workable model we could be hurting ourselves
Lisa: think we should take a vote/survey and get moving and require at least 2 people or consensu to re-open issues
Charles: Lisa, can you create the survey?
Lisa: would be better if Charles got it started
Charles: would like Janina or Michael to weigh in on the issue of a consensus before re-opening issues
Becka11y: concerned with requiring a change in process; people miss meetings and should be able to bring things back up as long as they are in good standing
Charles: yes, we can have
consensus on the call but that doesn’t include the entire group
and perhaps differing opinions
... will have survey for the different proposals using data
dash so people can start working on implementations;
... will discuss changing the process for re-opening issues at
the next planning call
charles: Thanks to team members about working on proposals for hackathons
thaddeus: Not to much to say, am trying to see if I can put something together locally to work on hackathon ideas; also have developers that have worked with Lisa who might be able to participate
Charles: would be great if they
could work in person at the hackathon
... would be good to call out any specific ideas within the
wiki page that Lisa created
... this is a joint hackathon - partner is more focused on
employment so will focus on Jypiter notebooks; entire focus is
not for personalization so we need to bring project ideas; I
will pitch those ideas to the community
Charles: Lisa had concerns about developers using the wrong values for attributes
Lisa: JF wanted to replace the
word field with purpose;
... we wanted purpose to replace all 3 when we were merging
action, field, and destination into one; Just changing it to
action, purpose, and destination doesn’t really make sense? I
didn’t think that is what he was proposing
Charles: think this is difficult
to discuss without JF and Janina present
... on button JF has data-action but couldn’t that also be
purpose? Need more people on the call to disuss merging the
attributes
Lisa; I’m not sure we understand the proposals
Charles: we can at least focus on easylang and numberfree
Lisa: just concerned that we are delaying implementations and will have to rehash this again and again
Charles: if we are using github for hackathon we will have the ability to do find and replace if we replace/change the attribute names
Lisa: there are still issues with symbols
Charles: we need more discussion of symbols
Lisa: we will put other attributes (numberfree, etc) to survey and also include the purpose, field, action, destination in the survey as well and leave the survey open for 3 weeks to give people time to respond
Charles: two surveys - one for attributes and another for symbols
Lisa: give people 3 weeks to make their arguments and then we need to move forward
Charles: so need to ask if destination and action should be separate or merged into purpose; vote field vs purpose; and also the use of alt- within the attribute name
<CharlesL> trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154 of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/Jupiter/Jypiter/ Default Present: CharlesL, Thaddeus, Becka11y, LisaSeemanKestenbaum Present: CharlesL Thaddeus Becka11y LisaSeemanKestenbaum Regrets: JohnF Janina Found Scribe: becka11y Inferring ScribeNick: Becka11y Found Date: 08 Apr 2019 People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]