Meeting minutes
Review updates to the explainer - https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/pull/181
Sharon: Notes this is the PR ...
Sharon: Asks about the various expected edits, what remains?
JF: Believe only remaining is bold/italic vs strong/emphasis
CharlesL: Notes preference in W3C for strong/emphasis
johnNotes CSS styling is still available
JF: The semantic includes visual, but can be styled
CharlesL: Notes screen reader settings used by some users
Sharon: Will look at PR for any gotchyas and approve or inform the list
JF: Notes also more recent updates? Are those included?
[discussion re whether the PR has the latest and greatest}
<janina> s/\}/]/
<Matthew_Atkinson> These are JF's latest changes https://
<JF> The latest is here: https://
<Matthew_Atkinson> For reference, the date was the 13th of this month.
i18n issue #144 (waiting for a response back) - https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/144
Sharon: Notes this is dangling for i18n
Sharon: No response?
becky: looks at history
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to say we've waited lon genough
janina: Suggests misunderstanding not cleared via github, we should ask for mtg as needed to clear
jf: Agrees we should move on
janina: Will ping addison
Open Content module 1 issues https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%221%29+content+module%22
Sharon: Seems destination/action/purpose -- are we good?
Sharon: Where to start?
Sharon: Are we still looking at possibly combining these?
janina: My recollection is we didn't actually decide
CharlesL: Have update on issue 128
CharlesL: Tried to reach out, but email bounced
Sharon: Close?
CharlesL: Yes, but will add comment. Perhaps the github handle may get action?
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to propose a path forward
jf: Believe right question posed. We need to make decision on the 3 attributes vs one
Sharon: OK, Charles will ping via github and close
jf: Notes 3 attribs proposed for some time; combining coming awfuly late
jf: Concerned with the rewrite job
Matthew_Atkinson: Suggest we might want to look at some other items and delay this one ...
Matthew_Atkinson: Not adverse to delaying this one while we mull it
Matthew_Atkinson: We do have other discrete items, and we've made progress on some
Matthew_Atkinson: We're not quite done with conflict resolution
Matthew_Atkinson: Some of these others may be easier to resolve
Sharon: Link?
<Matthew_Atkinson> Latest question on-list: https://
Matthew_Atkinson: Suggests various distinctions ...
Matthew_Atkinson: expectation of link vs button, etc
Matthew_Atkinson: Believe it's simpler to allow help to be either link or button
Matthew_Atkinson: some destinations might be actions
Matthew_Atkinson: the notion "opens inpage dialog" seems reasonable, but could be more than, might be several
jf: Agree we could shorten ....
jf: point is what serves target audience best?
jf: believe we need to define both
becky: Concerned developers were confused having same name in two places. Is that better documentation?
<JF> to also talk about augmenting with icons
janina: Concerned we may be over thinking mechanism vs what user needs
jf: we had concerned an onscreen icon
jf: but we may have multiple help icons -- different terms for each is cleanest
becky: Believe Janina provided justification for just using purpose
becky: Developer will understand user's need
Matthew_Atkinson: interesting discussion ...
Matthew_Atkinson: Believe adding icon may be indeed simplest; but maybe we only need one
Matthew_Atkinson: if we had a way of working out distination vs action ...
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to also speak to 'teaching' AI
jf: believe goal is also teachin AI systems
jf: so specificity wins out
jf: Not overly concerned if same icon is used for either
Matthew_Atkinson: Generally agree with explicit is better than implicit ....
Matthew_Atkinson: should we consider the rules we give to a validator?
Matthew_Atkinson: Sometimes both would be valid; but other times not. How do we guide?
jf: Perhaps an Ed Note asking responses during CR
jf: Concerned we may already have devs working from the draft
Matthew_Atkinson: Ask one detail ...
Matthew_Atkinson: Is the example currently legit? Where both can be used?
jf: Believe not explicitly forbidden; multiple attribs not forbidden
jf: Notes authors might do that and we're just trying to augment authoring
CharlesL: +1 to Ed Note
CharlesL: My only concern with 3 is that we have to ask for 3 from WHAT
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to suggest that Matthew and I pull together a 'whitepaper' with the outstanding questions and possible ways forward, and reference that in the Ed. Note
janina: Notes we're replacing data- specifically, with a reserved prefix
jf: Prefers to ask for the attribs without the prefix first
janina: That's another conversation and one that's strategic -- possibly above the TF pay grade
<JF> draft proposal: a) add Ed. Note to 1st module, b) Matthew and JF pull together a whitepaper that outlines the issues and possible ways forward
<Matthew_Atkinson> +1 to working with JF on white paper to support Editor's Note about possible ways forward wrt attributes.
<Matthew_Atkinson> +1 to it being a wiki page (thanks Janina)
<becky> +1
jf: Clarifies that we need a destination for our Ed Note to point for all the pros and cons
<Sharon> +1
jf: Could be a wiki
<Roy> +1
becky: Are we agreed on this one?
+1
<JF> +1
<Sharon> +1
Sharon: Appears so, and where it lives to be decided
jf: Will get it started
<Zakim> becky, you wanted to ask about resolving the name of the action help value
Action: JF to start the process of working with Matthew to collect pros and cons, and possible places to host that 'discussion'
<trackbot> Created ACTION-84 - Start the process of working with matthew to collect pros and cons, and possible places to host that 'discussion' [on John Foliot - due 2021-05-24].
becky: Want to get back to original q? action-help -- are we OK with same name for different values
<JF> action="opens_dialog" sort of maps to "hasPopup"
becky: Appears opening in page dialog is too specific -- as we currently have it
becky: Do we need more generic? Or allow two values
becky: There was confusion when they were the same, so we broke them out
jf: Values?
Becky: yes
[discussion on what we actually mean ...]
jf: On screen text may say "help," but tech may be different
becky: should look at the others where there may be overlap
jf: I propose Matthew and I will consider that ...
matthew: Noting I agree with what's being said, thinking distinction may be helpful to some users; but we also want to encourage creative competition among implementing user agents
Sharon: So we have a plan ...
Sharon: Anything else?