Meeting minutes
Agenda Review & Announcements
First Public Working Draft (technical approach)
<janina> https://
janina: made changes in this branch. we are trying to get wide review and do not want to confuse people. I did my best to get down to actual specification.
I have created another branch to avoid conflicts.
janina: abstract could easiliy be trimmed out and I did that. I also edited the introduction and re-ordered some paragraphs. there is enough info in introduction.
janina: some examples are justifying wide use-cases
janina: we should add the pointers to the part of HTML that says use data- may be JF can provide me that.
Dee: saw Janina's updates but seems like there are some editorial changes that need to be made before sending it to CFC.
Dee: in original draft there were some incomplete thoughts but now they are fixed. however, editorial changes such as typos, spelling has to be corrected.
<JF> @Janina - here's your link: https://
paul_grenier: question about introduction section to 3rd para.
janina: lets get the spelling, punctuation fixed
janina: I filled a bug on wcag 3.6.2 on incomplete sentence
<Roy> diffs
jf: have posted a link and sent an email to Janina about data-
Roy: use the diff link to find the differences between the two versions
janina: our gap analysis and use-cases documents are pretty good
paul_grenier: we felt like we had these documents and we were focused on sending the tech documents out. it was difficult to come out well. but it appears that we are almost there.
paul_grenier: if anyone else has any specific thing, either create a github or send it over
Other Business
janina: suggests to add a glossary section in the document.
janina: we should wrap two approaches in a section where we can explain the differences between two before going to each one of them.
janina: provide a comparison what the two approaches are before to to specific appraoch
Dee: I have created a table to compare the approach but do not have enough information such as error handling.
janina: having a table is good idea.
mhakkinen: table is good idea but perhaps we can move table to appendix and provide a reference in the document for more details.
janina: good idea
paul_grenier: adding glossary, appendix with comparison table, more concise intro to the multi-attr.
Dee: we need to add very brief concise plain intro to talk about the differences and link it to the table which is part of appendix.
Dee: explanation of why did we choose these two approaches.
paul_grenier: any other observations or concerns?
janina: we just need to make this document more understandable avoiding all the confusions