Meeting minutes
Scheduling, meeting July 5th?
Lionel_Wolberger: Are we meeting next week July 5'th /4th weekend.
Becky Charles: won't be coming holiday.
… , Janina and Sharon will also probably not be here.
Lionel_Wolberger: Cancel next meeting
Resolution: Personalization TF shall not meet on July 5th.
Press release, next steps
Becky: we will discuss this tomorrow in APA meeting. referring to him taking over co-facilitator from Lisa.
Editor's note (wiki page): accept this wiki page as an accurate presentation of our deliberations.
<Matthew_Atkinson> Wiki page URL: https://
Lionel_Wolberger: Matt & John great work, edited / discussed. Today can we accept the wiki page as an accurate captures the essence of our work on how we got here.
Becky: has it changed much?
Matt: I renamed it, I re-ordered it, and added a link to an HTML table outside the wiki to prevent the H-scrolling.
… , designed for us to look at the alternatives for the spec and make sure we are on the same page.
Lionel_Wolberger: minor changes and it summarizes the issue.
<Matthew_Atkinson> Proposed Editor's Note: https://
Becky: biggest thing was the title originally. and I was to help with the table.
… , I should have time to look at that. It may wrap if we try to do it.
… , wiki table didn't work. I noted the problem. If you are using that MARKDOWN you can't put code blocks in the table cells, you need to make an HTML table which I did and linked to.
… , it is a w3c.org url to the table.
Becky: I can't do anything different.
Matt: I think thats the issue with the codeblocks. not sure inline code sample, but you don't have the syntax highlighting. Pandoc didn't do it. maybe just a span inline code.
Charles: I did look at the html table and thought it looked fine.
Matt: we could put the html table in the repo instead of relying on the mailing list.
Becky: I think we should leave it in there. can you make the DH pages in the repo?
Roy: He should have access to the main branch so should be ok.
Lionel_Wolberger: I think the group is comfortable. all thats left is to update the link.
Matt: I will just do it, no worries about an action.
<Lionel_Wolberger> Straw poll: accept this wiki page as an accurate presentation of our deliberations.
+1
<Matthew_Atkinson> +1
<becky> +1
<mike_beganyi> +1
<Roy> +1
<JF> +1
Editor's note (wiki page): Write the note that points to this page
<Matthew_Atkinson> Proposed Editor's Note: https://
<Lionel_Wolberger> The draft text
<Lionel_Wolberger> This specification details a set of attributes named "action", "destination" and "purpose" as well as their allowed values. We have considered some alternatives to this specific set of attribute names and values. You can find an overview of these in the [wiki page]. We are seeking feedback from web content authors and user agent/extension implementers on these options.
Becky: we can add this to all 3 sections.
<Lionel_Wolberger> Becky proposes, we can put the note in front of each relevant attribute
Lionel_Wolberger: could be useful at the top, where this covers 6 attributes, where as these 3…
<Lionel_Wolberger> You can find a detailed discussion of these three attributes and alternatives...
Lionel_Wolberger: , not sure if we need that 3rd sentence on soliciting feedback as aren't we always?
<Lionel_Wolberger> +1 to not putting the note at the top, as this could signal uncertainty on our part.
Matt: one goal make sure it is neutral as possible, we could remove that feedback statement. I framed this so it wouldn't go at the top, impression that we have doubts about it straight away. I am not sure I fully agree with the spec as is, and want to make sure the effort which has gone into this is respected. would rather not send people off to alternatives. we should provide a unified approach, there are some alternatives
but that is secondary.
Lionel_Wolberger: Yes that makes sense.
Charles: Yes lets leave it from the top.
Becky: I agree, lets not move this to the top and could remove the feedback statement. 3 copies after each section.
… , I agree with Matthew.
John: +1 to that Becky. We can always accept feedback until it is published.
… , if folks think we are on the wrong path they can look at how we got here and why we decided what we did.
<Lionel_Wolberger> The attribute in this section, "action", is one of three attributes named "action", "destination" and "purpose" for which we considered some alternatives. You can find a detailed discussion of the three attributes and alternatives. You can find an overview at this page, [URL].
Lionel_Wolberger: This is an editors note.
John: I do have an open action item to do that I thought. #87
<Lionel_Wolberger> one more try:
<Lionel_Wolberger> Editor's note: The attribute in this section, "action", is one of three attributes "action", "destination" and "purpose" for which we considered some alternatives. You can find a detailed overview here, [URL].
John: , Are we saying this is the language we want to complete 87.
Becky: yes, but add it to every section for action, destination and purpose. I am good with this approache
John: the text that you proposed, one of three. right under heading 3, I can put in there and hyper link to that section.
<Matthew_Atkinson> This sounds good. I like the personalised note for each subsection. Suggest instead of "here," we have "at:"
Becky: my concern if a person jumps right to purpose they could miss that Note.
John: there already is a note for action & destination about duplicates.
<Lionel_Wolberger> +1 that the note is short and can be on each section.
Matt: I like the explicit rather than implicit, I couldn't visualize what you were suggesting. I like the personalization for each section.
Lionel_Wolberger: I understand the need to consolidate.
<Lionel_Wolberger> An overall note strawman: Editor's note: The attributes in this section, "action", "destination" and "purpose", had some alternatives discussed. You can find a detailed overview here, [URL].
John: Purpose has no note, and action/destination has a note on repetition of values which probably should be removed.
John: that cleanup happend while I was away, and now we can remove that note about overlapping of values and replace with this new language.
Matt: that cleanup was not completely perhaps, "end" action/destination or maybe that has been addressed.
… , agreed the structure of the wiki page is accurate of our deliberations, but the content of that table we need to discuss and understand it.
… , I would appreciate that feedback for the content of the table is correct.
Lionel_Wolberger: We may need both. semantic overlaps were already a concerned, there may be context involved. we don't want it in programatic language, and we thought this was closed but Matt viewed this and tried to convey this in his new table.
Becky: but we removed the duplicates.
John: I can't think of one with respect to context.
Becky: I do see Matthews point they are repeated. Not sure…
<Matthew_Atkinson> Just wanted to check, should we be looking at the latest Editor's Draft: https://
John: current proposal in draft still has 3 attributes, our table suggests corner cases where there may be more efficient way to mark it up. As long as we don't have a duplicate values.
Becky: what we have 3 separate ones so that note can be removed. It can be revisited
John: we showed the different context, and that could be moved into the normative text.
Matt: validation rules, we are trying to be flexible for validation. different users have different needs. when we look at the table we can think about that.
Lionel_Wolberger: are we going to remove the Note on 3.1.1
John: 2 of 3 attributes has a note (some of these token values on action/destination) and should be removed. there is still another sentence regarding context the authors should addres.
<Lionel_Wolberger> Lionel sees one action, delete the note: Some of these token values can apply to both an Action and a Destination.
<Lionel_Wolberger> Lionel sees the group is not decided re: deleting also, "Content authors should choose the appropriate component in context."
John: , I will add the new statement to the 3 sections. and remove the 2 original notes.
John: Yes remove the entire two notes, and add this new note in 3 places.
<JF> draft resolution: remove the 2 existing notes for Action and Destination. Add new Note to 3 attributes A, D, P
Resolution: To delete the current note that appears in 3.1.1 and 3.2.1
+1
<Matthew_Atkinson> +1
<becky> +1
<mike_beganyi> +1
<JF> draft new language: The attributes in this section, "action", "destination" and "purpose", had some alternatives discussed. You can find a detailed overview here, [URL].
<Roy> +1
<JF> +1 to "part A"
<Lionel_Wolberger> +1 to JF's wording
<becky> +1 to above language
<Matthew_Atkinson> +1
+1 to above language
<mike_beganyi> +1 to above
<Lionel_Wolberger> straw poll: Include the new note language three times, above each relevant attribute. The language is, "The attributes in this section, "action", "destination" and "purpose", had some alternatives discussed. You can find a detailed overview here, [URL]."
+1
<Lionel_Wolberger> +1
<JF> +1
<becky> +1
<mike_beganyi> +1
Resolution: Include the new note language three times, above each relevant attribute. The language is, "The attributes in this section, "action", "destination" and "purpose", had some alternatives discussed. You can find a detailed overview here, [URL].
<JF> propose to change this "You can find a detailed overview here" with "A detailed overview can be found at [URL]"
John: minor editorial change.
Lionel_Wolberger: ok with me.
<Matthew_Atkinson> +1
<becky> +1
+1 for jF change
<Roy> +1
<mike_beganyi> +1
<Lionel_Wolberger> Show approval of JF's minor edit
<Lionel_Wolberger> +1
<becky> phew! :-)