Meeting next Monday? MLK Day?
janina: Want to honor the holiday, but expect most of us will be here (due to covid), and we aim to reach CR as soon as possible, so suggest we meet.
JF: Any news on path to CR?
<Matthew_Atkinson> janina: Let's address in following items
Work on the Rendering plug-in (Matthew)
Matthew_Atkinson: zakim, close this item
Work on the Rendering plug-in (Matthew)
Matthew_Atkinson: Need to have a version of the extension we can redistribute
Matthew_Atkinson: Need to figure out with Lisa
Matthew_Atkinson: Having issues getting email to her
janina: Do we know what the blockage is?
Matthew_Atkinson: Extension I have doesn't have a license clause of any kind
Matthew_Atkinson: It's already in the web store, but the older version
janina: Expects that there would not be a license distinction from 1.0 to 1.1?
Lionel_Wolberger: How can I help
Matthew_Atkinson: Not actually sure what version is in the web store
Lionel_Wolberger: we'll need instructions, if it's a file being distributed, yes?
Matthew_Atkinson: It's a standard process, but can do. It's easy
Follow-up on i18n issue #144 https://
github.com/ w3c/ personalization-semantics/ issues/ 144
Lionel_Wolberger: Checked, and no further response; we are blocked.
janina: Discussed with Michael and Roy; we need to clear this issue.
<CharlesL> I agree lets wait for the rendering before we reach out again.
janina: Important to get the renderer demo sorted if we can before contacting them.
A shortname for the modules. The numbering is confusing.
Lionel_Wolberger: As discussed briefly before; the numbering is confusing.
<Lionel_Wolberger> the current, Personalization Semantics Content Module 1.0
janina: propose module 1 is "Content"
JF: Propose Content Personalization Module
<Lionel_Wolberger> The Content Module
<Lionel_Wolberger> Content Personalization Module
<Lionel_Wolberger> Personalization Content Module
<Lionel_Wolberger> personalization help and support 1.0
<Lionel_Wolberger> personalization tools 1.0
<janina> Matthew_Atkinson: Think all long names should include "Module"
<Lionel_Wolberger> Matt suggests that they all should contain the term, 'module'
<janina> Matthew_Atkinson: should they all start "Personalization Semantics"?
CharlesL: ^ Explainer
<Lionel_Wolberger> Personalization Semantics Content Module 1.0:
<JF> +1 to Charles
<janina> CharlesL: Notes Explainer is more consistent; suggests we use that format everywhere
<janina> jf: Agree
CharlesL: The Explainer names should be used everywhere.
<Lionel_Wolberger> Personalization Help and Support Module 1.0
<Lionel_Wolberger> Personalization Tools Module 1.0
JF: Not aware of a rule that specifies the names must have a certain format.
JF: Current names work quite well.
Matthew_Atkinson: Not sure about "Semantics." do we need it in there?
<Matthew_Atkinson> Matthew_Atkinson: Suggest "Content Semantics" if we keep the "Semantics"
<Matthew_Atkinson> janina: I'm more comfortable without the "Semantics"
<Matthew_Atkinson> Roy: The above are the docs that are currently published.
<Matthew_Atkinson> janina: We can still change the names.
<Matthew_Atkinson> Matthew_Atkinson: the URLs aren't consistent with the names
<CharlesL> +1 all start with Personalization
<Matthew_Atkinson> Lionel_Wolberger: Do we agree that they should all start with "Personalization"?
<Lionel_Wolberger> The Personalization Task Force will refine the Personalization Semantics specification, in consultation with the ARIA Working Group. The task force provides a focused forum for this work while the Working Group continues its work on ARIA development. Personalization Semantics was listed in the ARIA charter as "User Context" but was renamed as work progressed.
<Matthew_Atkinson> Lionel_Wolberger: The first is "Semantics Content" or "Content Semantics"?
<Matthew_Atkinson> Lionel_Wolberger: as JF reminds us, we are bringing semantics to the element level
<Matthew_Atkinson> +1 to the "element-level semantics"; that is a great micro-explainer :-)
<CharlesL> Agreed not the name of our TF
<Matthew_Atkinson> janina: Not sure that "Semantics" is part of our TF name.
<Matthew_Atkinson> janina: Not sure that "Semantics" is now important enough to put in the title.
<JF> +1 to Charles
<Matthew_Atkinson> CharlesL: If we take "Personalization (Content|Tools|...) Module"... we are adding semantics to each of these. Should be all or nothing.
<Matthew_Atkinson> CharlesL: we're not creating new tools, but adding semantics.
<Matthew_Atkinson> CharlesL: Prefer to keep "Semantics" for all
<Matthew_Atkinson> Matthew_Atkinson: W3C groups says we're "Personalization" (<https://
<Matthew_Atkinson> +1 to CharlesL
<Matthew_Atkinson> Matthew_Atkinson: "Personalization Semantics ... Module" seem accurate to me.
<Matthew_Atkinson> JF: Tend to agree, but not sure where the later modules are yet.
<Matthew_Atkinson> ... Concerned that we are particularly concerned about the symbol attribute in the first module.
<Matthew_Atkinson> ... Think it's purpose that is going to see the most adoption, and that is semantic information.
<Matthew_Atkinson> JF: so +1 to semantics here; not sure if it's applicable for the other two modules.
<JF> For example, @numberfree provides alternative text for people who prefer content that does not use numerical concepts.
<Matthew_Atkinson> janina: The URI will stay the URI; doesn't have to match the title. We can explain how we bring semantics into help and tooling if that's the case. I can live with either, but preference to take it out of the title, as we don't fully know how those modules will devleop.
<Matthew_Atkinson> Lionel_Wolberger: Is there anything to be gained from shorter, or longer titles?
<Matthew_Atkinson> CharlesL: Having a more descriptive title is better than a shorter title IMO.
<Matthew_Atkinson> ... Looking at the Help module, these are semantics that we're adding.
<Matthew_Atkinson> JF: We may define semantics differently. Some of the attributes are about providing additional information (e.g. alt text isn't semantics; we have some attributes that are similar). Semantics is more like "the purpose of this element is a link". We are adding more specificity.
<Matthew_Atkinson> ... Distraction is semantics, as we're stating relative importance, but a link to tools/help is a link. We want to classify it as a special type of link.
<Matthew_Atkinson> JF: I think Lionel_Wolberger's point on shortening the name is a useful consideration. There is nuance. Think our names are getting too long.
<Matthew_Atkinson> Lionel_Wolberger: To summarise: JF doesn't feel there is so much in the way of semantics in the later modules.
<Matthew_Atkinson> JF: Correct; it's often more about alternatives. Semantics are about the purpose of an element.
<Matthew_Atkinson> JF: A block of numbers with a span that has the "numberfree" attribute is providing an alternative restatement of that content.
Matthew_Atkinson: Find the discussion interesting
<JF> +1 to Matthew
Matthew_Atkinson: Suggest that we'll likely agree on Personalization * Module
<CharlesL> I think there is both, semantics and alternatives. Message-importance for example is more semantics than alternative in the tools module.
<janina> +1 to module
Lionel_Wolberger: Do we all agree they should end with "Module"?
<CharlesL> +1 ending with Module
Lionel_Wolberger: Each will start with "Personalization" and end with "Module" (also don't think the URL part needs to include "module"; it does already contain "personalization-semantics")
Lionel_Wolberger: Do we agree with Personalization * Module in the names?
RESOLUTION: Group agrees to a title scheme "Personalization * Module" (with other changes to be discussed).
<janina> -1 to the module in the URI
Lionel_Wolberger: Do we want "module" in the URIs?
Matthew_Atkinson: Can this decison on the * part be pushed back?
janina: We need to talk to COGA though, and thus need to not use numbers.
janina: Which is understandable.
janina: Need to be clear as to which module we're talking about, and concisely.
janina: We are about to go to CR with the first one, the Content one, though.
janina: I'm tending towards pulling "Semantics" out of the titles. We may be talking at different levels of strictness.
janina: We can avoid it in the titling, even if we discuss at length in the document.
<JF> "Personalization: Content Module", "Personalization: Help and Support Module", "Personalization: Tools Module"
Lionel_Wolberger: Agree we need simple and consistent names for these.
Lionel_Wolberger: We don't need shorter names, as long as they're accurate names.
<JF> Proposes: "Personalization: Content Module", "Personalization: Help and Support Module", "Personalization: Help Module"
Lionel_Wolberger: But in this case, the shorter names help to differentiate.
Lionel_Wolberger: Suggest we pick this up next time.
JF: +1 to continuing next time
Lionel_Wolberger: Propose we meet next week; can cancel if need be.