Meeting minutes
<Github> https://
<Github> https://
<Github> https://
<Matthew_Atkinson> Link to current draft of CR exit criteria: https://
CfC for Content Module 1.0 CR Status, Issues raised by the W3C Director upon their review [1] Exit criteria, [2] TAG Response Resolution [3] BCI Sharon]
<Matthew_Atkinson> Link to current draft of CR exit criteria: https://
Matthew_Atkinson: Above is inprocess draft of Exit Criteria
Matthew_Atkinson: Compared with other specs, as well as process doc
Matthew_Atkinson: which includes two independent implementations; noting that have 205 value pairs
Matthew_Atkinson: believes that means 2 implementations for each of those 205
Matthew_Atkinson: thinking primarily of browser extensions
Matthew_Atkinson: all implementations need not be in a given extension--can be across multiple implementations
Matthew_Atkinson: expect we will need a test page with all 205 pairs
Matthew_Atkinson: one way might be content with and without our ml
Matthew_Atkinson: that can create side-by-side comparison
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say combine tables and to mention 2nd CR relation and to define UA
MichaelC: need to come up with overall strategy -- is this one?
Matthew_Atkinson: yes, proposal of how to test; still working on reporting
Matthew_Atkinson: expecting a table with 205 rows and each implementations a column
MichaelC: yes, could be pass/fail value
MichaelC: should have more to explain
MichaelC: also here to talk strategic process
MichaelC: knowing we have a second CR coming
michael: looks at what the expectations of 1 cr are
janina: explains expecting to request permanent reserved prefix from what-wg
MichaelC: yes, and we should explain that in our transition request
~~janina: recalls need to define user agent as well as authoring reqs
janina: ua would have RFC2119 MUST statements
MichaelC: we should carefully define UA to our advantage
Matthew_Atkinson: there need to be some reqs
Matthew_Atkinson: would we say react to all 205?
Matthew_Atkinson: gave internal presentation and heard question on how this would apply to apps, native desktop or mobile
Matthew_Atkinson: people are thinking that way
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say don´t require all
MichaelC: would encourage avoiding expecting all values to be implemented
Matthew_Atkinson: characterize as here's this attrib, and here its values
janina: notes typical approach is to segregate into normative and informative sections of the spec
/michael//
Matthew_Atkinson: still working on it and will be on it this week
Matthew_Atkinson: will report on list
<Lionel_Wolberger> Lionel is lurking, on another meeting. Waves hello to all.
prospective meetup with TAG
janina: Notes that's on the planning subtopic: bci
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say add the bliss topic to 2nd cr explanation
MichaelC: given we have a second cr, normative references could go there and not the first CR
MichaelC: suggests a note for now
MichaelC: suggesting even excel is for 2nd, but point to pdf for now
MichaelC: we don't need to gate 1st cr on the registry work
MichaelC: we should look for registry in FPWD by 2nd Adapt CR
MichaelC: the registry would need to be final by the time Adapt is finalized, but should be OK for 2nd CR
MichaelC: Roy and I will chat and come up with approach to Director
Respond to issue #203 (Janina)
<Github> https://
janina: not done
BCI Registry Implementation
janina: Reached out to Russell
sharon: also Lionel working on implementations
TPAC 12-16 September 2022 preparations
janina: So TAG meeting
Matthew_Atkinson: many meetings we're organizing have some relation to Adapt
Matthew_Atkinson: Suggest updating slides and doing breakout
Matthew_Atkinson: develop an elevator pitch
Matthew_Atkinson: updating slides should be easy because we already have them from last year
Matthew_Atkinson: was asked by this TF to come up with a page where MQ5 would be insufficient, but Adapt would
Matthew_Atkinson: getting there with that page, but not ready yet
Sharon: yes, element level metadata, not just page level
Discuss @rel vs. purpose/destination/action -- add to the explainer
janina: we're recalling this came up in a conversation between Lionel and Tzviya
Sharon: a few more times, too
Sharon: adding explanation to our Explainer is what we agreed is the way to address
Sharon: want to hold on this for Lionel, as he had the conversation
Content Module Implementations Status
Sharon: have not heard from Phill re IBM implementation; he's been out
Sharon: Lionel has committed to doing one
janina: suggests all 205 pairings won't come from just the ADA complaint form
Matthew_Atkinson: we can't rely on a published site using all 205, or close to; therefore the test page
Matthew_Atkinson: testing is going to be laborious; visual
Matthew_Atkinson: thinking aloud about mechanisms to automate part of it somehow
Matthew_Atkinson: looking forward to how others have approached this, e.g. ARIA
janina: notes benefits to screen reader and lo vision magnification users whose tech does "soda straw" ivews of content; so less is more!
Future meetings
janina: There are likely three weeks off in September (Labor day, TPAC, and the week after).