Meeting minutes
Editor's note on action-destination-purpose (Matthew and John) -- Matthew sent the proposed editor's note
MA: we've been working on this - refocus on providing the deliverables as expected and this is a work in progress.
… seeking feedback and comments
This note outlines the different approaches, with code samples. Also includes a matrix with all of the options in one place (view)
<becky> https://
<becky> https://
LW: are these really Research Questions? Isn't this more seeking feedback?
MA: sure, what we call is less important than what we are seeking, which is more feedback
JS: likes "Request for Feedback" - implies that we want that feedback
BG: this is also to capture history, right? Historical data
LW: agree with Becky - this is a presentation of the topic
CL: fine with request for feedback. Want to note that changing the title changes the URL (wiki)
CL: this is the first time I've seen "meaning" - is this new?
MA: when I did the demo page, this was one of the options. This is a proposal that would apply to a change of approach
so, "meaning" was a new concept - I added the name but open to suggestions
it's a step on the way - a less drastic approach (merging action and destination) - there is also another proposal that re-uses attributes that are in common
CL: fine if this is just for illustration
MA: we can choose a different name if this is confusing. But we can certainly change it
BG: don't want to go down a rabbit hole.. if we already have purpose, why would we need meaning? So why (we will need an answer for that)
CL: the MathML working group is doing work on a proposed attribute "@intent"
to be used in MathML - "what is this for in the mathematical equation?"
LW: introducing a new word has kicked off new discussion - suggest instead "action-destination" instead of "meaning"
MA: 1) this is a placeholder, 2) contemplated that but it makes it a long attribute name
MA: to Charles... re: @intent - interesting. Considered it, but it is a common term already, so we need to be mindful of that.
JS: Noted that MathML was working on @intent as well - interesting.
to the extent that we can re-use... that may be useful. Is MathML looking at a prefixed set of attributes?
CL: no it would be part of the MathML spec
<Lionel_Wolberger> q/
JF: -1 to "@action-destination" - too long. We could note that @meaning = @action+@destination
CL: how will we cross link this? Note that it's just a wiki page today
MA: the idea is to link to the wiki page from the Editor's Note
… tried to keep this as neutral as possible - without showing a preference to one or the other
but I do understand that this may actually introduce more confusion
if @meaning isn't working we can perhaps come up with something else?
<janina> Proposed Ed Note: https://
<Lionel_Wolberger> q/
BG: only concern is I don't recall us deciding to merge this. Feel like we haven't discussed this as a group
<janina> +1 tro Becky that this is new
LW: we can take that as a consideration, but we have discussed this
JF: we have discussed this before. As I recall, the idea is to continue with the original 3, and note in the Working Draft that these are some open quesions
LW: what are next steps, and should we have this as a public conversation. There is some resistance to continued discussion
LW: looking to create some concensus. we could add a note that ActionDestination (or some other notation) is an open idea
Don;t want to get hung up on terms
LW: understand why @meaning becomes a problem, so perhaps using camelcase or hyphenated term
BG: concern is that we are going to CR - if we have 3 different proposals, we're going to lose time
we had 2 proposals, now it seems we have 3
BG: we were going to have 1 or 3, now this is a new proposal (2)
suggests that we haven't discussed this a lot
but this seems to be opening up the discussion even more - root of concern
BG: so, are we introducing more confusion?
this seems we're not making it clear - it was pick one or the other, now it's pick one of three
BG: less concerned on what we call it - the concern is that there is now 3 different approaches
JF: this was driven by a realization that action and destination were often confused, or not reliably distinguishable
<JF> JS: want to underscore the context - if we are just updating the Working Draft not too bad. But if this is for CR then that introduces more concern
<JF> JS: now hearing a question - what is being proposed here? 2 alternative approaches or 3?
<JF> worry that we add those questions to a CR document - maybe just update the working draft for now
<JF> JS: important that we are clear on this before we go to CR
<JF> MA: not looking to delay things. Just want to ask that once final edits are completed, really implore that you look at the table (matrix) at the bottom
<JF> shows the implications (as we understand them today) of the different approaches
<JF> MA: trying to make it clear that we propose to continue as is, but also want to anticipate some feedback
<JF> MA: review of the matrix will help
<JF> LW: clarification of edits
<JF> LW: We have a useful document, we are engaging with this
<JF> JF: suggests moving matrix to top of document (the TL;DR as it were)
<JF> BG: noting scrolling issue in Chrome
<JF> [discussion: the table/matrix is an embedded content with markdown]
<JF> LW: 3 attributes (Action/Destination/Purpose) or 1, now we might have a 3rd option (Action+Destination/Purpose)
<JF> LW: we need a 'name' for the combined Action/Destination - can use hyphen, CamelCase, or something else
+1
Lionel agrees with Becky, adding meaning is confusing
<Matthew_Atkinson> I'm OK with changing my "@purpose (for action-destination) and @meaning (for form controls)" example to "@action-destination and @purpose" as that's clearer.
<JF> [discussion]
<JF> LW; we can have Mathew do some cleanup - confusion around @meaning (and resultant discussion)
<JF> LW: so we need to have the author(s) do some edits
<JF> JF: proposes that Matthew makes some edits, shares the changes via email (and some other cleanup ideas)
+1 table on top
<Zakim> Matthew_Atkinson, you wanted to confirm revisions needed (there are three I think)
<JF> LW: so Matthew will make the edits, we should all read that once he's done (will send out an email) so that we can finalize next week
<JF> LW: [discussion on scrolling table in wiki]
<JF> BG: what if we do it in markdown
<JF> +1 BEcky
<JF> BG: wil take a stab at it
<JF> BG: it's a tedious process
<JF> MA: will try doing this via a conversion process - will communicate with Becky if he needs help
<JF> BG: it's only the one table that fails
<JF> MA: rendering the data in a table is useful
<JF> -1 to an appendix to a linked note
<JF> JS: we will need to continue the discussion of the name of the page - important!
LW: want to change the name sooner rather than later but Janina believes we should discuss the name next week
Janina: want to make sure the name is set before share with the public