Meeting minutes
CfC for Content Module 1.0 CR status and comments
Sharon: Saw Jason's concerns about the CfC regarding the EdNotes. Do we need to do any work on this?
Jason's email: https://
Roy: We can remove EdNotes before transition. We may want to keep the one regarding prefixes.
CharlesL1: I think it's fine to keep EdNotes as-is at least until the second CR.
Matthew_Atkinson: Some of the content in EdNotes, e.g. relating to symbols, is really important to keep in the document. We should be able to do that in some way.
Lionel_Wolberger_: I think Jason highlighted things we're aware of, and are working on.
Lionel_Wolberger_: The "at risk pending implementations" EdNotes: what do they mean?
Matthew_Atkinson: I believe this means if nobody implements it, it may be removed.
CharlesL: We need two implementations to pass CR.
CharlesL: These are the things that we anticipate may struggle to get two implementations.
Lisa: +1 to CharlesL. There were some things that seemed to be getting traction, but others were more concerning.
janina: [confirms the requirement for two implementations]
Lionel_Wolberger_: If everything's at risk pending implementations, why are there 7 particular instances where this is called out?
janina: We can remove them.
Lionel_Wolberger_: We could record this on the list, but I don't think it confers a better reading experience on the spec.
janina: +1 - I thought maybe there were specific issues in the past that gave rise to these. If that's not the case let's take these out, as they're generally true for any requirement.
<Lisa> +1 to remove them
Lionel_Wolberger_: We have a motion before us to remove those EdNotes.
<CharlesL> +1 to remove thats fine.
Sharon: Sounds like we all agree on this.
+1
Sharon: Let's make this an action item.
Lionel_Wolberger_: I'll record the action.
janina: Jason gave us several editorial suggestions; didn't want to block the CR.
CharlesL: We were talking about the email earlier in the meeting and the suggestion to remove EdNotes; we want to keep the content of those EdNotes, but the only one that needs to remain an EdNote is the one about the prefix.
Lionel_Wolberger_: can janina or Roy remove them?
Roy: I can
<Roy> Change the ED note to Note.
Matthew_Atkinson: We need to change them to Notes, rather than EdNotes, so we don't lose the content [checking with Roy and janina that we can do that? -janina confirmed we can]
CharlesL: Roy: please can you make this change in a separate PR, so we can see the change specifically.
Sharon: And we are still going to remove the "at risk pending implementation" ones.
<Roy> https://
Roy: Some implementations are listed on this page.
janina: They worked at the time, but don't believe these still work.
<Roy> https://
janina: We have historical experience of implementation, but no current implementations.
Roy: Should be OK to transition to CR; need implementations afterwards [to get past CR].
Sharon: Roy: you're clear to remove the 7 "at risk pending implementation" notes, as part of this?
Roy: Yes
janina: Three things: (1) the "at risk" EdNotes come out; (2) all the EdNotes except one become Notes; (3) the EdNote that remains an EdNote is the one about us using data-* attributes for now.
Roy: ACK
Announcement of the Content Module 1.0 CR Status for W3C news - https://www.w3.org/WAI/cc/wiki/WAI_Announcement_Drafts
janina: I created a candidate 'blog post today. Corrected typos and dates (through TPAC for comments).
janina: We're also asking for _no_ binary attachments, and either GitHub issues, or plain text email, for comments.
janina: We're willing to work with anyone for whom this is an accessibility challenge.
Lionel_Wolberger_: I'd like to add to the 'blog post.
janina: +1
janina: We're either running out of time, or will miss our desired date of the 26th of July to move to CR.
Lionel_Wolberger_: My feeling is that Shawn could take what's there at any moment. I could do a little more popularization. How does this group want to be involved? Make a subcomittee, or one or two people getting involved? Do we want to rewrite it now for a few minutes?
Lionel_Wolberger_: I think we should be pushing towards press releases and would like to tweak the language.
janina: It's generally better to get things right than work to an artificial deadline. We'd like to get it done by the ADA anniversary, and that is at risk (need to decide today), but it's important to get it right.
Lionel_Wolberger_: Agree both are important.
Lionel_Wolberger_: E.g. the first sentence could be broken up.
janina: Agree. Other things are taken directly from our Introduction or Explainer.
Lionel_Wolberger_: Is Shawn going to edit?
janina: It needs all the chairs' approval. Right now it says it's not ready for review. Some of the links are not correct.
Sharon: Are we still trying to make the end of today?
janina: The group should decide. Roy can clean up the markup; Shawn will help with the language. If we think this is close, I'd say let it go and let's meet the 26th deadline. If we tinker with it, changes will still be made.
Sharon: I'm fine with that. This has been a long time in the making.
Sharon: Any objections to getting it in today?
To quote one of my colleagues: Let's do this!
CharlesL: The only thing I would say we should do today is to get the links sorted.
janina: Roy will do this.
CharlesL: +1 then
Roy: There is a transition request process that requires the technical director's approval. Maybe need extra time.
janina: The reality is we may miss the 26th, but we can try.
Lionel_Wolberger_: Trying to break up the first sentence...
<Lionel_Wolberger_> With this CR publication W3C is breaking new ground in web accessibility.
<Lionel_Wolberger_> The specification provides for the first time an initial set of element level metadata semantics.
<Lionel_Wolberger_> The WAI-Adapt specification enables authors to add extra semantic information about content to enable personalization for the individual user.
<Lionel_Wolberger_> Content authors can employ these semantics to provide technological adaptations to address the needs of various persons with cognitive and learning disabilities.
<Lionel_Wolberger_> This provides extra support and facilitates user-agents for people with learning and cognitive disabilities.
<Lionel_Wolberger_> ABOVE THIS ALL IS THIS SENTENCE
<Lionel_Wolberger_> [WAI-Adapt - Content Module 1.0 as a Candidate Recommendation (CR)] (https://
becky: suggest "for the first time, this specification provides" (minor nit)
Lionel_Wolberger_: +1 to the first time emphasis
janina: Do we chairs approve this?
Matthew_Atkinson: +1
Roy: +1
janina: Let's tell Shawn; I'll let her know.
Roy: I should post a draft 'blog post, and create a PR for the news on the WAI site.
janina: Let Shawn make edits first.
Lionel_Wolberger_: saying "this" specification "for the first time" seems wrong; seems "a" is better?
janina: Maybe we remove the "first time" then.
janina: Shawn is a great wordsmith, and will work on this.
Blog post on Content Module 1.0 CR Status (Lionel)
3.6 edits / Editor's note for symbols (Janina action)
Sharon: Did we finish this?
janina: Yes; PRs all merged.
TPAC 12-16 September 2022
janina: We should be talking about this soon.
Disambiguate between HTML @rel and WAI-Adapt specified "purpose/destination/ action."" (Lionel)
TPAC 12-16 September 2022
janina: I think we'll show our work to DPUB
CharlesL: Working on attending IRL.
janina: same
Disambiguate between HTML @rel and WAI-Adapt specified "purpose/destination/ action."" (Lionel)
Sharon: Do we have time for this?
Lionel_Wolberger_: We wanted to discuss it; maybe not time here.
janina: We found from Lisa when last we were on the call that this was looked into, but decided that @rel was not relevant. Need to point to the documentation for that.
Lisa: IIRC this is covered in the [GitHub] wiki.
<Lisa> https://
Lisa: On inspection, @rel doesn't seem to be mentioned there.
<Lisa> https://
<Lionel_Wolberger_> https://
<Lionel_Wolberger_> John wrote,
<Lionel_Wolberger_> The difference between the @rel attribute values and @destination attribute values only has one apparent overlap: Help.
janina: Don't think we need this for CR, but we need to be ready with more information soon.
Lionel_Wolberger_: John called what we all were noticing; let's keep it on the agenda.