<LisaSeemanKest> clear agenda
<LisaSeemanKest> regrets, sharon
<LisaSeemanKest> ok
<LisaSeemanKest> no one else has joined yet anyway
<scribe> scribe: becky
<LisaSeemanKest> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/actions
<LisaSeemanKest> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2020Nov/att-0010/00-part
LS: Sharon drafted response to TAG
BG: she mentioned we need Michael to review
<LisaSeemanKest> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2020Nov/att-0010/00-part
<LisaSeemanKest> are we happy with it
<LisaSeemanKest> +1
LS: are we happy with this draft to do to the TAG (just edits from discussion last week)
<janina> +0 Don't recall what I read when I read it
CL: some funky characters in first main paragraph
LS: I will fix
BG: actually 2 places - see also the paragraph about microformats
<LisaSeemanKest> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2020Nov/0015.html
BG: I don't think the list of cognitive issues was trimmed to only reference module 1 issues
LS: agree, it is not the latest
version that got edited for typos; need to update
... will update and resend to the list
<LisaSeemanKest> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2020Nov/0011.html
LS: next todo is to reference the BCI numbers. see change to editor's note
BG: we were advised to put in the reference and then "management" will repond if this is not sufficient.
CL: be careful about the links in the email - they are not full; need to copy and paste.
<LisaSeemanKest> after publications should be after publication
LS: are we comfortable with this? Just need someone to make this change
<LisaSeemanKest> chage in the document
<LisaSeemanKest> +1
+1
<CharlesL> +1
<LisaSeemanKest> janina is ok too
Roy: I will make the change to replace the editor's note that is currently there
LS: next todo is the redline of the explainer that Janina was going to review
JS: I need more time - will provide the edits for the TR version
<LisaSeemanKest> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues?page=1&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen
LS: next todo - check for open
issues that we need to address
... have some issues still open - some are feature requests;
how do we handle issues still open?
<LisaSeemanKest> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/150
LS: that was just spam - closed
<LisaSeemanKest> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/149
LS: the definition of critical should include a bullet point; believe we discussed, I created and am happy to close
<LisaSeemanKest> 148 was for images
LS: issue 148 was for images, I wrote and am okay to close
<CharlesL> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/148
<CharlesL> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/147
LS: issue #147 add "distressing" as a distraction; believe we had a discussion and group turned down but I can't find in the minutes
BG: browsers scan for some of this; and how to define - what is distressing for some people may not be distressing to others
LS: was; distressing: Content that may distress some users such as content with a violent, graphic or non-consensual sexual aspect. Is that too vague?
JS: not too specific but it
changes based on culture; there are no hard and fast rules -
have to make a judgement
... don't want to stake the 1.0 version on this type of
subjective judgement
... strongly suggest deferring
BG: I also prefer to defer
<LisaSeemanKest> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/139
BG: we need Roy to update so these links get added to the Resources section
Roy: I have not completed, yet
<LisaSeemanKest> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/135
LS: #135 overlap of accname and roles; JF did respond;
JS: okay to close since we did respond
<LisaSeemanKest> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/133
BG: this is the initial I18N review - it was broken into several sub issues all of which we have addressed
JS: close this one
<LisaSeemanKest> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/131
LS: ping self review privacy
checker
... JF responded and issue opener was satisfied
BG: close
LS: mozilla one we want to keep
open - #128
... it references implementation
<LisaSeemanKest> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/125
LS: Cleanup in modules to match updated auto-complete harmonization
CL: we did this, okay to close
LS: ignoring #90 and 91 - they
are about the tools module
... feature request about trigger warning, #89 and 88 - marked
as feature request
... rest are 2018
JS: we need to at least address them
LS: relates to implementation
discussion #84 someone suggested webannotations
... we did add web annotations to the chart - close
... issue 83 from JF - To be inter-operable, our definitions
need to be normative
JS: we have stumbled over this in HTML
LS: the short sentences example is not in module 1
BG: but that is just one example, someone should probably review module 1 closely for examples
JS: let's not dive in this one today
BG: I believe we still need to
review before closing
... need to wait until JF comes back into the group
<LisaSeemanKest> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/78
LS: #80 is about the tools module - deferring for now
<CharlesL> Personalization Semantics is a series of technical specifications that provide the element-level attributes and values which enable user agents and helper-applications to adapt content to an individual user's needs. It relies on author-supplied page and element level metadata in order to achieve individualized personalization.
<CharlesL> Personalization Semantics currently consists of three modules: Content, Help, and Support Tools. The specification defined in this document is the Personalization Semantics Content Module—the first of the Personalization Semantics Modules series.
LS: #78 questions if we are
overloading the word semantics to also encompass visual
elements?
... suggest someone to draft a response - I will do that
... next few are about implementation from Sam; we did give
various implementations a thorough review but never drafted a
response
... #72,73, 76, 77 all are around implementations
CL: believe we can close #73 since we did add to the comparison page
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: CharlesL becky Lisa Roy Janina Found Scribe: becky Inferring ScribeNick: becky WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 16 Nov 2020 People with action items: WARNING: Possible internal error: join/leave lines remaining: <LisaSeemanKest> no one else has joined yet anyway WARNING: Possible internal error: join/leave lines remaining: <LisaSeemanKest> no one else has joined yet anyway 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]