<LisaSeemanKest> clear agenda
<LisaSeemanKest> ageda+ tag responce
<becky> scribe: becka11y
<LisaSeemanKest> scribe: becky
<LisaSeemanKest> #139 <https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/139>
LS: agree on the explainer
becky: latest change was to the
explainer abstract
... present+
LS: 3 options - we can send this to CfC with APA; we can assign someone to read it over carefully; we can ask the entire group to review by next week
Janina: exactly 4 weeks from
start of TPAC; want to get this published before then; don't
need CfC since this is an updated working draft
... this is a slightly more important working draft but we do
need to review carefully to make sure it says what we want and
people unfamiliar with the topic can understand
LS: Janina and Lisa will review by Wednesday and finalize on list; if no big issues we will finalize on the list
<LisaSeemanKest> on the list to finalize
<LisaSeemanKest> silance is aproval...
LS: no objections will finalize on the list
Becky: I will make a pull request right after this meeting
<LisaSeemanKest> action Lisa and janina to read it over by wenersday
<trackbot> Created ACTION-71 - And janina to read it over by wenersday [on Lisa Seeman-Kestenbaum - due 2020-09-21].
Janina: this will not be a final version until after module 3 is published
Roy: I will review for formatting / code issues
Lisa: need to check all the links in the explainer
<LisaSeemanKest> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Requirements
Lisa: we have a requirements
document that was big, long, painful and incomplete - has no
introduction, not consistent, etc. We made a requirements
document on the wiki - it is shorter; people seemed happier
with it
... should we be moving the requirements document from the wiki
to github space?
Janina: yes, perhaps but we don't
officially need it until PR
... is a req. for transition from CR to PR so okay to be in
wiki for now
<Roy_> https://www.w3.org/TR/personalization-semantics-requirements/
Roy: we have already published as FPWD so this is the one we should be referring to (not the wiki)
Janina: so, that changes things - based on Roy's clarification this req. document becomes much more important
Lisa: proposing to update the FPWD of the req. with the contents of the wiki and update as a new editor's draft
<LisaSeemanKest> ACTION: lisa update the editers draft of requirments doc
<trackbot> Created ACTION-72 - Update the editers draft of requirments doc [on Lisa Seeman-Kestenbaum - due 2020-09-21].
Charles: much less detail in wiki version - esp. regarding module 3 - is that sufficient?
Lisa: we had a debate about this
- use cases should be in the explainer; req. are how to
meet
... in current WD we have code changes (before and after) and
we shouldn't have that level details in the requirements - if
you want to understand how something is implemented you look at
the spec.
Janina: only thing we need for PR are the requirements for module 1
Charles: would we have three requirements doc? One for each module?
Janina: need to double check that we can rev. requirements as we add more
Lisa: there is much more in the original version that goes beyond requirements
<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#input-purposes
becky: We need to add a formal citation to WCAG 2.1
<CharlesL> should look like [[WCAG 2.1]] I belive
Roy: I will handle this - issue is now assigned to me
Janina: made a comment on the cover note for the TAG explainer
<LisaSeemanKest> pospone explainer and tag to next week
<CharlesL> prefix- approach
Janina: prefix approach -
proposal is to go to WHAT WG and ask for a reserved prefix for
our attributes; John prefers that we ask for more than
one
... discussed that at APA chairs - suggest that we follow the
same path as ARIA - start with one prefix and eventually others
became actual attributes in HTML
... so propose asking for a reserved prefix - don't have to
specify the actual desired prefix at this time
... this is the replacement for data. This is how ARIA started;
believe that asking multiple right now is too difficult, esp.
since we don't have an entire list;
Lisa: group needs to agree with the path and then once agreed, draft the request
Janina: Becky and Janina as
chairs can draft the request for reserved prefix
... will draft the request
Lisa: there have been discussions that this approach makes personalization sidelined
Charles: I think this is the best
route for now - esp. since we don't have big implementation
examples from larger corporations;
... Need to show our current usage of data- based on
recomendation from TAG
Janina: def. need the explainer to be ready; then explain how we have been using data- based on HTML section 3.6.2.2
<LisaSeemanKest> vote on janinas proposal to ask for a reserved prefix
<janina> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Request a reserved prefix from WHAT-WG to replace our use of data- in Module 1.
<LisaSeemanKest> +1 but not strong
<Roy_> +1
+1
<CharlesL> +1
<LisaSeemanKest> any objections
<LisaSeemanKest> no objections.
<janina> +1
Janina: believe that by following the ARIA path we get these introduced to the wider audience; once taken up they can become additional attributes
RESOLUTION: Request a reserved prefix from WHAT-WG to replace our use of data- in Module 1.
Lisa: give paople 48 hours to respond on the list is objections
Janina: propose a short 3 minute
video for module 1 for TPAC - very important
... having a video that we can point is really great
... next steps, Janina, Josh, and Lisa agree on a time; Janina
introduces concept, Lisa explains, Janina sums up - 3 minute
maximum
... Josh will edit it down
<LisaSeemanKest> becky offering captioning!
Lisa: would also like videos for COGA and user needs;
<LisaSeemanKest> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/159
<LisaSeemanKest> non-verbal -> nonverbal
Lisa: there are several typos that need to be fixed in content module
<LisaSeemanKest> ACTION: charles to put 159 issues into the dracft
<trackbot> Created ACTION-73 - Put 159 issues into the dracft [on Charles LaPierre - due 2020-09-21].
Charles: I can make those changes
<LisaSeemanKest> ACTION-70: Add up/down/start and end
<trackbot> Notes added to ACTION-70 Add up/down/start and end.
<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/task-forces/personalization/track/actions/70
Lisa: request to add up/down/start/end rather than left and right - raised by internationalization;
Becky: do we have next and previous? I think so
<LisaSeemanKest> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/155
Lisa: yes we have next and previous; should update the left and right to specify that it is based on logical positioning
This is scribe.perl Revision of Date Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Present: janina CharlesL LisaSeemanKest Found Scribe: becka11y Found Scribe: becky Inferring ScribeNick: becky Scribes: becka11y, becky WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 14 Sep 2020 People with action items: charles lisa 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]