Meeting minutes
<sharon> Link updates to explainer and requirements, https://
Distraction example PR, https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2020Dec/0008.html
<LisaSeemanKest> +1 to Beckies examples and pll request
Becky: I added the two examples, just need people to review
<CharlesL> +1
<sharon> +1
Sharon: if no objections will ask Roy to approve the pull request
Charter for APA (due end of the month)- Proposed https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2021Jan/0004.html
<LisaSeemanKest> module 1: pr
<LisaSeemanKest> > - module 2: WD Hopely CR if we can
<LisaSeemanKest> > - develop best practice (may included user settings)
<LisaSeemanKest> > - module 3 : WD
Sharon: John's suggestion for our charter. Lisa suggested Mod. 1 to PR, mod. 2 as WD, Best practices, and Mod. 3 as WD
Janina: clarification for module 1 - do we mean TR (technical) vs PR (proposed)
Lisa: yes TR for mod. 1
Sharon: reads John's email. Wants to see Best practices for both tool implementers and content authors, suggests we add wording about proposing new SC for WCAG version 2.3 as part of our mandate
Janina: I think list of deliverables is ambitious; probably ok since only TR is module 1; specify that best practices are for module 1 only; less comfortable doing prototype work for AG working; might be useful to have cross group meeting
Janina: we don't have to have work with AG / suggest new SC within the charter, that is part of overall APA to work with other groups
Lisa: I agree that we don't need working with AG in the charter. We can certainly develop some best practices but if we need implementations before we can create content best practices. So, not as comfortable promising authoring best practices.
Lisa: previously we made two lists - one for charter and another for the group. They may not be exactly the same.
Janina: suggest wording of creating best practices for "such as" and provide examples - content and authoring.
Becky: Biggest issue is the dates. So have 3 normative track and 1 supporting document
Janina: the key with the normative specs if we have to agree on when we will get to CR. Michael okay with going to CR with data- as long as make sure implementers are aware that data- will be replaced with a reserved prefix when it is determined
Lisa: then we can add an editor's note about data- changing
Janina: yes, add an editors note where data- is introduced
Lisa: will draft editor's note and send to the list
Sharon: do we want module 2 as CR?
Janina: can't go to CR unless it is listed in the charter
Janina: propose TR for module 1 in 2022 by TPAC (Q4)
Charles: Stretch goal of CR for mod. 2 by 2024, Q2
Janina: Reviews Candidate Rec (CR), PR proposed Rec (must have 2 independent implementations); Then create report to director with review of implementations and requirements are valid. Once approved then can transistion to TR Technical rec. after time for review and votes from w3c governing body. If enough votes, becomes an official TR
Janina: propose PR for mod 1 in Q2 of 2022
Janina: very close to CR for mod. 1 now. Second CR in Q3/Q4 of this year once have attribute. Implementers update implementations with new attribute and complete by Q1 2022. Then move onto PR
Lisa: need implementations before asking for attribute; lots of emails going back and forth to coordinate
Janina: if we need to push mod 1 to 2023 perhaps we should not put mod. 2 into CR
Lisa: no one minds if you are early. Can say mod 1 in 2023 but can finish in 2022 (which may be optimistic); this gives implementers more time
Lisa: believe module 2 should go faster, we will have the reserved prefix and shouldn't have the research and data dash issues we had with mod. 1
Charles: want to keep mod. 2 as a CR by end of charter; okay with pushing for mod 1 TR by Q4 2024; There will be periods of waiting for mod 1 implementers that we can be working on module. 2
Janina: TR for mod. 1 Q4 2023; CR for mod. 2 by Q2 2024
Charles: we will be working on mod. 1 and mod. 2 in parallel
Janina: and will already have the reserved prefix for module 2
Janina: dates are not needed for WD and Best Practices
Charles: do we have to put WD in the charter
Janina: if the WD is already published it we continue to work on it, don't need to include a date.
<LisaSeemanKest> https://
Janina: we will put mod. 3 in the charter as a working draft; confirmed that we have already published it is an "official" WD
Sharon: these are emails from Lisa clarifying links for the module to make sure explainer and requirements go to TR track documents (not the wiki)
Roy: I can check all of the links in the content module (mod. 1)
WhatWG re: data- ask for a permanent reserved prefix
Janina: this is postponed now that we are going to publish (CR) with data- and editor's note that this will change. Once implementations we will go to WHAT-WG for reserved attribute
Review remaining Actions, https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/actions
Sharon: Asking about BCI numbers
Roy: this is still pending, will continue to pursue
Lisa: add that Roy is going to update the links, remove old editor's notes so can add the new on about data-
Sharon: Roy has todo to add video to home page
Roy: have to review with Michael
Roy: we opened Issue #144 and #145 about I18N - we need to resolve addn. comments
Sharon: no meeting on Monday, Jan. 18
Lisa: also need a cfc to publish
Janina: yes, at APA level
Sharon: I'll clean up the list of actions in wiki