13:54:23 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #personalization
13:54:23 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/05/10-personalization-irc
13:54:25 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:54:28 <trackbot> Meeting: Personalization Task Force Teleconference
13:54:28 <trackbot> Date: 10 May 2021
13:54:37 <LisaSeemanKest> agenda+  True/False values (John) -    https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization
13:54:46 <LisaSeemanKest> zakim, clear agenda
13:54:46 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:54:48 <LisaSeemanKest> \agenda+  True/False values (John) -    https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization
13:54:54 <janina> janina has joined #personalization
13:55:02 <LisaSeemanKest> Conflict resolution (John) -
13:55:02 <LisaSeemanKest>    https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization
13:55:03 <LisaSeemanKest>    -tf/2021Apr/0032.html
13:55:19 <LisaSeemanKest> agenda+  True/False values (John)     https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization
13:55:37 <LisaSeemanKest> agenda+ Conflict resolution (John) -    https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2021Apr/0032.html
13:57:57 <LisaSeemanKest> Agenda+ moving forward on merging attribute
13:58:00 <janina> present+
13:58:48 <LisaSeemanKest> Agenda+  other open issues
14:00:23 <Matthew_Atkinson> Matthew_Atkinson has joined #personalization
14:00:28 <Matthew_Atkinson> present+
14:00:29 <sharon> sharon has joined #personalization
14:00:42 <CharlesL> CharlesL has joined #personalization
14:00:56 <CharlesL> present+
14:01:26 <JF> JF has joined #personalization
14:01:31 <JF> Present+
14:01:33 <sharon> present+
14:01:34 <JF> agenda?
14:01:37 <LisaSeemanKest> present
14:01:42 <LisaSeemanKest> present+
14:01:53 <CharlesL> present+
14:02:03 <LisaSeemanKest> regrets: becky
14:02:08 <Lionel_Wolberger> Lionel_Wolberger has joined #personalization
14:02:20 <Roy> present+
14:02:38 <CharlesL> scribe+
14:02:39 <LisaSeemanKest> scribe: charlesl
14:02:49 <Lionel_Wolberger> present+
14:02:54 <LisaSeemanKest> next item
14:03:22 <JF> https://www.w3.org/TR/personalization-semantics-1.0/
14:04:14 <CharlesL> JF: true/false was legacy, in the explainer which is not normative.  We are not using true/false so we can just remove it from the explainer.
14:04:15 <JF> https://www.w3.org/TR/personalization-semantics-1.0/#propcharacteristic_value
14:04:57 <CharlesL> …, not used in any of the modules, so we can just take them out.
14:06:07 <CharlesL> …, we either defined either a string or a specific set of token values, but nothing used true/false.  In this section in the explainer we can take out true/false and true/false undefined and maybe URI as well.
14:06:09 <LisaSeemanKest> +1
14:06:12 <CharlesL> +1
14:06:13 <Lionel_Wolberger> +1
14:06:13 <Matthew_Atkinson> +1
14:06:16 <janina> +1
14:06:18 <sharon> +1
14:06:24 <JF> ACTION: JF to clean up Explainer to remove values (T/F, etc.)
14:06:30 <trackbot> Created ACTION-82 - Clean up explainer to remove values (t/f, etc.) [on John Foliot - due 2021-05-17].
14:06:31 <LisaSeemanKest> next item
14:06:36 <LisaSeemanKest> q?
14:06:38 <CharlesL> Resolved: remove true/false from the explainer
14:06:41 <LisaSeemanKest> ack m
14:06:45 <LisaSeemanKest> next item
14:08:04 <LisaSeemanKest> agenda+ matts othe emails
14:09:45 <CharlesL> JF: we may have already answered this over the past 2 weeks.  For the first 3 attributes (action, destination, purpose) there are times when those 3 were to be paired with native role semantics.  What happens when action is not on a button, but links should have destination attributes.
14:09:56 <LisaSeemanKest> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2021May/0007.html
14:09:59 <JF> <a href="" role="button" action="opens-in-page-dialog" destination="help">
14:10:34 <CharlesL> …, role of button then takes on the action.  we only augment the semantics.  we need to tighten that up.
14:10:56 <CharlesL> …, we don't change the semantics of the role of the element.
14:10:57 <Matthew_Atkinson> +1 to us augmenting (not overriding) semantics
14:11:44 <CharlesL> Lisa: I suspect it should not change it, because it could break thinks.  should say algorithm checking should issue a warning, not an error. for validators.
14:13:34 <CharlesL> JF: I agree, Mike Smith is the maintainer of the validators right now.  he could adopt the rules as required.  we also at one time thought our would be more aligned with ARIA which does change the semantics.  However I don't think this is the case for our spec.
14:13:41 <stevelee_> stevelee_ has joined #personalization
14:35:26 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #personalization
14:35:26 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/05/10-personalization-irc
14:35:36 <Roy> RRSAgent, make minutes
14:35:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/05/10-personalization-minutes.html Roy
14:35:58 <janina> zakim, who's here?
14:35:58 <Zakim> Present: JF, CharlesL, Lionel_Wolberger
14:36:00 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, hadleybeeman, janina, sharon, LisaSeemanKest, Matthew_Atkinson, CharlesL, JF, Zakim, Roy, Lionel_Wolberger, stevelee, MichaelC, trackbot
14:36:13 <Roy> agenda?
14:36:28 <janina> present+
14:36:46 <janina> zakim, who's here?
14:36:46 <Zakim> Present: JF, CharlesL, Lionel_Wolberger, janina
14:36:48 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, hadleybeeman, janina, sharon, LisaSeemanKest, Matthew_Atkinson, CharlesL, JF, Zakim, Roy, Lionel_Wolberger, stevelee, MichaelC, trackbot
14:37:07 <Roy> trackbot, start meeting
14:37:10 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:37:13 <trackbot> Meeting: Personalization Task Force Teleconference
14:37:13 <trackbot> Date: 10 May 2021
14:37:42 <Roy> agenda+  True/False values (John) -    https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization
14:37:47 <Roy> agenda?
14:38:08 <Roy> agenda+ Conflict resolution (John) -    https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2021Apr/0032.html
14:38:21 <Roy> Agenda+ moving forward on merging attribute
14:38:56 <Roy> scribe+ CharlesL
14:39:21 <Roy> zakim, next item
14:39:21 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- True/False values (John) -    https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization -- taken up [from Roy]
14:39:26 <Roy> JF: true/false was legacy, in the explainer which is not normative.  We are not using true/false so we can just remove it from the explainer.
14:39:26 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:04]  <JF> https://www.w3.org/TR/personalization-semantics-1.0/#propcharacteristic_value
14:39:27 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:04]  <CharlesL> …, not used in any of the modules, so we can just take them out.
14:39:28 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:06]  <CharlesL> …, we either defined either a string or a specific set of token values, but nothing used true/false.  In this section in the explainer we can take out true/false and true/false undefined and maybe URI as well.
14:39:32 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:06]  <LisaSeemanKest> +1
14:39:34 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:06]  <CharlesL> +1
14:39:36 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:06]  <Lionel_Wolberger> +1
14:39:38 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:06]  <Matthew_Atkinson> +1
14:39:40 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:06]  <janina> +1
14:39:42 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:06]  <sharon> +1
14:39:44 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:06]  <JF> ACTION: JF to clean up Explainer to remove values (T/F, etc.)
14:39:46 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:06]  * trackbot is creating a new ACTION.
14:39:48 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:06]  * RRSAgent records action 1
14:39:50 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:06]  <trackbot> Created ACTION-82 - Clean up explainer to remove values (t/f, etc.) [on John Foliot - due 2021-05-17].
14:39:53 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:06]  <LisaSeemanKest> next item
14:39:55 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:06]  * Zakim sees a speaker queue remaining and respectfully declines to close this agendum
14:40:00 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:06]  <LisaSeemanKest> q?
14:40:02 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:06]  * Zakim sees Matthew_Atkinson on the speaker queue
14:40:04 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:06]  <CharlesL> Resolved: remove true/false from the explainer
14:40:06 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:06]  <LisaSeemanKest> ack m
14:40:08 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:06]  * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
14:40:10 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:06]  <LisaSeemanKest> next item
14:40:12 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:06]  * Zakim thinks agendum 2 -- Conflict resolution (John) -    https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2021Apr/0032.html -- taken up [from LisaSeemanKest]
14:40:15 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:08]  <LisaSeemanKest> agenda+ matts othe emails
14:40:17 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:08]  * Zakim notes agendum 5 added
14:40:19 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:09]  <CharlesL> JF: we may have already answered this over the past 2 weeks.  For the first 3 attributes (action, destination, purpose) there are times when those 3 were to be paired with native role semantics.  What happens when action is not on a button, but links should have destination attributes.
14:40:23 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:09]  <LisaSeemanKest> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2021May/0007.html
14:40:26 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:09]  <JF> <a href="" role="button" action="opens-in-page-dialog" destination="help">
14:40:31 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:10]  <CharlesL> …, role of button then takes on the action.  we only augment the semantics.  we need to tighten that up.
14:40:34 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:10]  <CharlesL> …, we don't change the semantics of the role of the element.
14:40:36 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:10]  <Matthew_Atkinson> +1 to us augmenting (not overriding) semantics
14:40:38 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:11]  <CharlesL> Lisa: I suspect it should not change it, because it could break thinks.  should say algorithm checking should issue a warning, not an error. for validators.
14:40:41 <Roy> [2021-05-10 22:13]  <CharlesL> JF: I agree, Mike Smith is the maintainer of the validators right now.  he could adopt the rules as required.  we also at one time thought our would be more aligned with ARIA which does change the semantics.  However I don't think this is the case for our spec.
14:40:45 <Roy> RRSAgent, make minutes
14:40:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/05/10-personalization-minutes.html Roy
14:40:56 <Roy> RRSAgent, make log public
14:41:01 <Roy> RRSAgent, make minutes
14:41:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/05/10-personalization-minutes.html Roy
14:41:26 <CharlesL> scribe+
14:41:32 <LisaSeemanKest> present+
14:41:34 <JF> Present+
14:41:36 <sharon> present+
14:41:41 <Roy> present+
14:42:12 <LisaSeemanKest> note the server went down so we shifted to zoom chat. charles is coping it back
14:42:28 <CharlesL> This specification, suggests but does not overide native semantics. In the case of conflict between implied sematinics validation algorims should issue a warning, not an error.
14:42:28 <CharlesL> Me to Everyone (7:20 AM)
14:42:28 <CharlesL> Matthew: semantics from the a11y tree. Implied semantics could be confused with implicit roles
14:42:29 <CharlesL> Lisa Seeman to Everyone (7:20 AM)
14:42:29 <CharlesL> This specification suggests, but does not overide, native semantics and does map to accessibilty tree. In the case of conflict between implied sematinics and native roles, validation algorims should issue a warning, not an error.
14:42:29 <CharlesL> JF to Everyone (7:20 AM)
14:42:30 <CharlesL> The attributes and values in this specification do not overide the semantics found int he Accessibility Tree, but rather augment them. In the case of conflict betbween implied sematinics validation algorims should issue a warning, not an error.
14:42:30 <CharlesL> The attributes and values in this specification do not overide the semantics exposed by the Accessibility Tree, but rather augment them. In the case of conflict between implied sematinics, validation algorithms should issue a warning not an error.
14:42:30 <CharlesL> Me to Everyone (7:23 AM)
14:42:31 <CharlesL> Matthew: action or destination that author got it wrong, but some UA might just do it anyways.  If we made it hard and valid but could see it.
14:42:31 <CharlesL> Me to Everyone (7:23 AM)
14:42:31 <CharlesL> Lisa: they don’t map to the a11y tree / change the a11y tree, and when it conflicts should be an error.
14:42:32 <CharlesL> Matthew: maybe leave out the conflict resolution.
14:42:32 <CharlesL> JF to Everyone (7:24 AM)
14:42:32 <CharlesL> The attributes and values in this specification do not over-ride the semantics exposed by the Accessibility Tree, but rather augment them.
14:42:33 <CharlesL> Lisa Seeman to Everyone (7:25 AM)
14:42:33 <CharlesL> who likes that wording?
14:42:33 <CharlesL> +1
14:42:34 <CharlesL> Me to Everyone (7:25 AM)
14:42:34 <CharlesL> +1
14:42:34 <CharlesL> JF: the broadest meaning of semantics applied at the element level.
14:42:35 <CharlesL> JF: making it machine readable.
14:42:35 <CharlesL> Me to Everyone (7:26 AM)
14:42:35 <CharlesL> Matthew: should it be exposed in the a11y Tree or by?
14:42:36 <CharlesL> JF: I would say it should be injected into the a11y tree.  What ever the agues are should be nodes in the a11y only informational.
14:42:36 <CharlesL> Matthew: agreed.
14:42:36 <CharlesL> Roy Ran to Everyone (7:28 AM)
14:42:37 <CharlesL> We could back IRC now
14:42:37 <CharlesL> Me to Everyone (7:28 AM)
14:42:37 <CharlesL> JF: Steve Fawkner might be able to help us with the wording.
14:42:38 <CharlesL> Lisa Seeman to Everyone (7:31 AM)
14:42:38 <CharlesL> matt will ask steve. but ediroal
14:42:38 <CharlesL> wording subject to edorial change +1
14:42:39 <CharlesL> Matthew Atkinson to Everyone (7:31 AM)
14:42:39 <CharlesL> s/Fawkner/Faulkner/
14:42:39 <CharlesL> +1
14:42:40 <CharlesL> Sharon Snider to Everyone (7:31 AM)
14:42:40 <CharlesL> +1
14:42:40 <CharlesL> Lisa Seeman to Everyone (7:31 AM)
14:42:41 <CharlesL> anyone object
14:42:41 <CharlesL> Lionel Wolberger to Everyone (7:32 AM)
14:42:41 <CharlesL> +1
14:42:42 <CharlesL> Matthew Atkinson to Everyone (7:33 AM)
14:42:42 <CharlesL> I asked Steve if an element’s semantics are exposed in, or by, the accessibility tree, and he said that they are "exposed in the accessibility tree" :-).
14:42:42 <CharlesL> Lisa Seeman to Everyone (7:33 AM)
14:42:43 <CharlesL> thanks
14:42:43 <CharlesL> Me to Everyone (7:33 AM)
14:42:43 <CharlesL> Lisa: should validators throw a warning  if the the semantics does not match the role?
14:42:44 <CharlesL> Me to Everyone (7:34 AM)
14:42:44 <CharlesL> Matthew: I am not sure if I object. Thinking fwd. when an author gets it wrong what the UA/Extension does, wondering how that affects the spec.
14:42:44 <CharlesL> Lisa: validation algorithms that check code
14:42:45 <CharlesL> JF: validators are good for validating the code by the author.
14:42:45 <CharlesL> Me to Everyone (7:36 AM)
14:42:45 <CharlesL> Lisa: lets decide on the validator should posts warnings, not an error, but that leads to the next discussion what happens if it still is wrong.
14:42:46 <CharlesL> JF: but we then also need what UA should do.
14:42:46 <CharlesL> Me to Everyone (7:37 AM)
14:42:46 <CharlesL> Lisa: I disagree that we should tell the UA what to do if there is an error.
14:42:47 <CharlesL> JF to Everyone (7:37 AM)
14:42:47 <CharlesL> <input type="text" action="help">
14:43:06 <CharlesL> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:43:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/05/10-personalization-minutes.html CharlesL
14:43:18 <LisaSeemanKest> rrsagent, publish  minutes
14:43:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/05/10-personalization-minutes.html LisaSeemanKest
14:43:43 <JF> agenda?
14:43:52 <JF> zakim, close item 1
14:43:52 <Zakim> agendum 1, True/False values (John) -    https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization, closed
14:43:54 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
14:43:54 <Zakim> 2. Conflict resolution (John) -    https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2021Apr/0032.html [from Roy]
14:44:03 <Roy_> Roy_ has joined #personalization
14:44:04 <JF> zakim, next item
14:44:04 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Conflict resolution (John) -    https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2021Apr/0032.html -- taken up [from Roy]
14:44:13 <JF> Q+
14:44:43 <JF> The attributes and values in this specification do not overide the semantics exposed by the Accessibility Tree, but rather augment them. In the case of conflict between an element's semantics and the attribute values, validation algorithms should issue a warning but not an error.
14:44:45 <CharlesL> ack JF
14:44:47 <LisaSeemanKest>  In the case of conflict between implied sematinics validation alg\orims should issue a warning, not an error.
14:46:29 <CharlesL> Janina: so the value of issuing the warning or error, whoever is authoring the content they are potentially doing something wrong.
14:47:04 <CharlesL> Lisa: they gotten something wrong that we are not requiring this, which is why this is a warning.
14:47:30 <CharlesL> …, will help people use our specification, this will be a support to ARIA as well.
14:47:37 <CharlesL> …, anyone object to this?
14:47:45 <JF> no objection so far
14:47:55 <LisaSeemanKest> put it in?
14:47:57 <LisaSeemanKest> +1
14:48:06 <janina> +1
14:48:10 <JF> +1
14:48:11 <sharon> +1
14:48:12 <Matthew_Atkinson> +1 (but Steve said it's "exposed in the accessibility tree" re the editorial question)
14:48:14 <CharlesL> +1
14:48:28 <JF> ACTION: JF to add The attributes and values in this specification do not overide the semantics exposed by the Accessibility Tree, but rather augment them. In the case of conflict between an element's semantics and the attribute values, validation algorithms should issue a warning but not an error.
14:48:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-83 - Add the attributes and values in this specification do not overide the semantics exposed by the accessibility tree, but rather augment them. in the case of conflict between an element's semantics and the attribute values, validation algorithms should issue a warning but not an error. [on John Foliot - due 2021-05-17].
14:49:18 <JF> s/exposed by the/exposed in the
14:49:24 <CharlesL> Lisa: do we want to suggest how UA's handle this.
14:49:49 <JF> Q+
14:50:15 <LisaSeemanKest> ack j
14:50:18 <JF> <input type="text" action="help">
14:50:20 <CharlesL> …, they may want to add help overlays, or change it to something more ambiguous.
14:50:28 <janina> q+
14:51:30 <Matthew_Atkinson> q+
14:51:41 <LisaSeemanKest> ack j
14:51:43 <CharlesL> JF: I disagree, then my browsers tries to put an action icon on a text field which will be confusing.  I think if its wrong it *MUST* be ignored.
14:52:18 <LisaSeemanKest> ack m
14:52:22 <Matthew_Atkinson> What about this example (less straightforward maybe?): <a href="/help.html" role="button" destination="help">Help</a>
14:52:43 <CharlesL> Janina: I would rather let UA do what they want, I don't see any direct benefit to it and allows for healthy competition.
14:53:00 <JF> <a href="/help.html" role="button" purpose="help">Help</a>
14:53:25 <CharlesL> Lisa: Depending on what the UA is doing, maybe just putting on a Help icon.
14:53:35 <CharlesL> JF: that is broken,
14:54:09 <CharlesL> Matthew: if we simplifier things, we may end up with fewer attributes if we allow the UA to do what they want.
14:54:34 <CharlesL> …, yes thats invalid,
14:54:59 <CharlesL> JF: what should a browser do with that clearly wrong code?
14:55:52 <LisaSeemanKest> q+
14:55:54 <CharlesL> Matthew: thats a good question, we will see what happens how they use it, we could give them some hints.  I don't know the answer to the question.  we want to see what people do with it and limit what they should do with it.
14:56:18 <CharlesL> …, we we say its an error then thats it but since its a warning we will see what the UA do with it.
14:56:26 <CharlesL> Lisa: make a proposal.
14:56:47 <JF> Q+
14:56:52 <JF> ack L
14:56:55 <LisaSeemanKest> may ignore
14:57:10 <CharlesL> Lisa: the UA "MAY" ignore our semantics if its in conflict.
14:57:31 <CharlesL> JF: for the validator is it a MAY/SHOULD or MUST?
14:58:04 <CharlesL> …, issue a warning.
14:58:16 <CharlesL> Lisa: I would go for a "SHOULD"
14:58:47 <LisaSeemanKest> +1 to should
14:58:48 <JF> 1) Validator SHOULD issue a Warning, User-Agent MAY ignore the code error
14:59:02 <CharlesL> Janina: I agree for now *SHOULD* issue a warning, we are very young spec, we need to see creativity by the community being overly restrictive.
14:59:16 <becky> becky has joined #personalization
14:59:31 <CharlesL> Lisa: I think we remove the UA only a SHOULD for Validators.
14:59:36 <LisaSeemanKest> any objetion to ignoring user agent recomendation
14:59:46 <JF> 0
14:59:49 <LisaSeemanKest> +1 to ignore
14:59:56 <CharlesL> 0
15:00:10 <sharon> 0
15:00:59 <LisaSeemanKest> janina stongly in agreements to ignoiring the user agent recomendation on conflict recomendation
15:01:00 <LisaSeemanKest> 4
15:01:28 <Matthew_Atkinson> 0 (maybe somewhere betwen 0.1 and 0.5, need to think, but doesn't change the result, and very interesting stuff! :-))
15:01:48 <CharlesL> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:01:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/05/10-personalization-minutes.html CharlesL
15:02:42 <LisaSeemanKest> siren
15:02:44 <CharlesL> rrsagent, make logs public
15:02:50 <CharlesL> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:02:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/05/10-personalization-minutes.html CharlesL
15:03:25 <Roy_> Roy_ has joined #personalization
15:04:16 <Roy_> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:04:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/05/10-personalization-minutes.html Roy_
15:31:08 <stevelee> stevelee has joined #personalization
15:45:46 <LisaSeemanKest> LisaSeemanKest has joined #personalization
15:59:46 <CharlesL> CharlesL has left #personalization