<LisaSeemanKest> regrets, sharon

<LisaSeemanKest> clear agenda

<LisaSeemanKest> blog at https://www.metamatrix.se/aktuellt/invisible-web-design-colors

<LisaSeemanKest> blog at https://www.metamatrix.se/aktuellt/invisible-web-design-colors

<LisaSeemanKest> scribe: stevelee

internationalization review https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/133

<LisaSeemanKest> blog at https://www.metamatrix.se/aktuellt/invisible-web-design-colors

<CharlesL> regrests+ Sharon

<Roy> https://github.com/w3c/i18n-request/issues/new/choose

lisa: felt this post was mostly positive and encourage paticipation

roy: we can request a move to WD when ready

<LisaSeemanKest> https://github.com/w3c/i18n-request/issues/108

<LisaSeemanKest> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/133

lisa: I think we done enough on these tackers

charles: looks like our 133 has been closed and the tags look like we don't need to do

<Roy> https://github.com/w3c/i18n-request/issues/new/choose

roy: the 188m team appear to be using a new style of horiz review process and we did it wrong

CharlesL: looks like we request review on that link which asks questions
... next transition, what has changed since last, self review resultS

becky: looks like we need to use the self review one first

<CharlesL> https://www.w3.org/International/review-request#selfreview

lisa: seems to be the same. not seeing a template

this link shows how to use the 'request' labels in our repo

<CharlesL> https://w3c.github.io/i18n-drafts/techniques/shortchecklist

charles: we have simplification that might include i18n issues

lisa: don;t have free text but symbol mapping might
... but alt text supplied by 'user'
... also is not character encoding but close enough we should discuss with them
... could write an issue of the steps to do

charles: I can

<LisaSeemanKest> ACTION: charles write issue ofr in https://w3c.github.io/i18n-drafts/techniques/shortchecklist

<trackbot> Created ACTION-42 - Write issue ofr in https://w3c.github.io/i18n-drafts/techniques/shortchecklist [on Charles LaPierre - due 2020-03-02].

<LisaSeemanKest> we neede to make sure we have adress localization and culture norems correctly

<LisaSeemanKest> ensure that there’s an approach in place which allows effective storage and labelling of, and access to localised alternatives for strings, text, images, etc

<LisaSeemanKest> does many to one mapping and visa versa - does that do it

lisa: eg making a cup of tea, a language has a several words that map to a single word in another which als ohas a single symbols
... also a language has a several symbols
... ths is handled at implementation end. so symbols accross languages may be a problem

charles: so basically we ask them if they see any problems with our approach to this
... charles so we do a self review 1st in our own repo

becky: they appear to want an issues added to their system

charles: OK, could just add one to their's

janina: we do same in APA
... should be getting tooling so all horiz reviews follow similar template
... I think they well have seem accessibility issue and raised them given time

charles: I can look through web and find examples any examples of what me might need to put in eg RTL

lisa: or we could ask them for specifics, do we use in examples?
... probably easier to ask.

charles: we might be over thinking

becky: I think we are, espec with symols, implementor should know how they map
... everything now is a token in module 1

janina: next will get them at 1st public dratt

becky - maybe add a note saying implementer takes responsibility for i18m

lisa/charlse - we could show 2 examples in different languagea mpping to same symbol

issue tracking https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Draft-issue-responses

<LisaSeemanKest> <span data-symbol="13621 12324 17511">cup of Tea</span>

janina,: they could help us

they are the expert

lisa: symbols could help support i18n

CharlesL: OK, I'll emails a set of their questions to our group first to get comments on approaching self review

lisa: anyhting left for security review?
... I add comments that John added proxy info and notes on agent stack so no exposing private info - di they get added in?

charles: I was last person - looks like Lisa requested a tag review inside the ping review - seems more like a comment

<LisaSeemanKest> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/476

lisa: I linked to it as required - so is OK. But did we then tell ping?

<Roy> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2020JanMar/

<LisaSeemanKest> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/

lisa: I think we need to send an email

<LisaSeemanKest> ACTION: lisa send https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/ review

<trackbot> Created ACTION-43 - Send https://lists.w3.org/archives/public/public-privacy/ review [on Lisa Seeman-Kestenbaum - due 2020-03-02].

<Roy> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-security/

<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/Guide/process/charter.html#horizontal-review

need to check where to send email!

<LisaSeemanKest> ACTION: roy to find out were we send ping review

<trackbot> Created ACTION-44 - Find out were we send ping review [on Ruoxi Ran - due 2020-03-02].

<LisaSeemanKest> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Draft-issue-responses

lisa: nex, need to provide official responses to issues raised on GitHub in response to our work
... suggest a wiki page where we can draft and review responses with having a big process for each

<LisaSeemanKest> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Draft-issue-responses

lisa: thoughts?
... idea is we gain consensus for the response text in the wiki we can then reply on the issue
... and this is probably a better place that the issue or list

janaja: is important we discuss first rather than in public

charles: this wiki pages has ALL issue but think better have separate for new issues from non members for WideReview
... but in another issue tracker format rather than wiki as discussion is easier that wiki editing

becky: what does wcag do?

janina: have issues in github

charles: or discuss in a call?

<LisaSeemanKest> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/73

janina: could use labels to indicate 'disucussing' and 'answered' etc

charles: that avoids complication with 2 parallels issues.

janina: can comment and close in one action

lisa: surveys work along similar ways.
... doing each in a call could be slow

becky: we need always use labels to filter as we will need a label anyway

lisa: someone can go through labelling now

janina: why not keep ALL the same if originated form members

lisa: we need some sort of process
... think to much call time

prefer issues but have wiki so lets go with it for the current issues

<becky> prefer using github

Lisa: lets take issue 33, assign to myself
... and will review next meeting

rssagent, make minutes public

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/jana/janina/
Present: janina LisaSeemanKest CharlesL becky Roy stevelee
Regrets: sharon
Found Scribe: stevelee
Inferring ScribeNick: stevelee
Found Date: 24 Feb 2020
People with action items: charles lisa roy

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.)