Meeting minutes
<Github> https://
<Github> https://
Reminder: Sept, 3 weeks without Adapt TF meetings
Sharon: one more meeting, then three weeks off
janina: discuss what we want to achieve in next couple weeks. beings 6th-7th and goes through TPAC. if we want to update WD we might be able to achieve by next week
TPAC Prep status
Sharon: discussed in planning meeting last week, potential meeting with COGA and TAG. will COGA be there at TPAC?
janina: 4 people should attend in person. will end up verifying registration of COGA reps and decide from there. regardless, in terms of our meeting, I'd like to see an agenda before making a meeting
… as far as meeting with Adapt, let's get an agenda first
Lionel_Wolberger: I have 7 topics for an agenda to discuss with COGA. what Adapt does, what the role is, what we do, what we don't do, what we need from COGA (use cases)
janina: bad cop question: why does this have to happen at TPAC?
Lionel_Wolberger: because COGA may benefit more from in-person meetings
janina: send to Lisa if not entire COGA list. they're in charge of their agenda at Monday and Tuesday meetings. agreement between APA and COGA that it's a reasonable meeting
janina: if TAAG shows up, it's higher priority
s/ TAAG, TAG
janina: have not had a response from TAG just yet. may need to follow-up
janina: did you get the breakout proposed, Lionel?
Lionel_Wolberger: Adapt breakout proposed last week. it's on the Wiki
<Matthew_Atkinson> Here's the proposed Adapt breakout: https://
Lionel_Wolberger: no other breakouts are needed currently. we need a joint meeting with TAG
Exit criteria status & comments
Sharon: addressing MichaelC's comments
<Sharon> https://
janina: update our WD if we can before TPAC
Lionel_Wolberger: will be able to review shortly
Matthew_Atkinson: same
janina: Michael saying this should be an appendix. other suggestion to highlight is that we need one MUST statement relating to user agents. did you catch that Matthew?
Matthew_Atkinson: we were talking about this, Lionel and I. only place it makes sense is basically authors can do what they want. implementation: implement as many as you like, if you implement some, you MUST cover all the requirements
janina: that sort of language is great, needs some review. will address prospective feedback that the spec doesn't require anything
janina: wording is close, but still needs some review
<Lionel_Wolberger> The sentence in question: User agents MAY implement any set of attributes from this specificationthey wish. If a user agent implements an Adapt attribute, it MUST provide support for all possible values of that attribute.
janina: if we can agree before next week and avoid CFC, would be good to have that done before TPAC. we can avoid having that conversation at TPAC. can have more productive conversations
<Lionel_Wolberger> New sentence:
<Lionel_Wolberger> User agents MAY implement any set of attributes from this specification. If a user agent implements an Adapt attribute, it MUST provide support for all possible values of that attribute.
<Lionel_Wolberger> User agents MAY implement any set of attributes from this specification. Whenever user agent implements an Adapt attribute, it MUST provide support for all possible values of that attribute.
<Lionel_Wolberger> User agents MAY implement any set of attributes from this specification. Whenever a user agent implements an Adapt attribute, it MUST provide support for all possible values of that attribute.
Sharon: anything else to cover on MichaelC's comments? or just to update wording on main requirement before next week?
Discuss @rel vs. purpose/destination/action -- add to the explainer
Lionel_Wolberger: discussed several times. main difference between rel and destination values is in help.
<Lionel_Wolberger> https://
Sharon: so what is the next step? is this what we need to write up and add to the Explainer?
Lionel_Wolberger: because rel seems to pop up, it should be in the Explainer
janina: it needs its own section maybe something about how rel is insufficnet
janina: makes sense that Explainer should address this
<Lionel_Wolberger> Wiki page, "Comparison of ways to use vocabulary in content": https://
janina: would be good to be in Explainer before TPAC
Sharon: could you find a place for rel in the Explainer, Lionel?
Lionel_Wolberger: sure can
Matthew_Atkinson: looking at MDN version of spec. rel only allowed on certain elements. depending on which elements, different values can apply.
Matthew_Atkinson: why not make rel allowable on a wider range of elements? have more range of values on elements
Matthew_Atkinson: could combine attributes. might be more applicable to developers. might not be technically feasible
janina: I think it's worth checking. regarding picking up any attributes and values and migrating them into HTML 5. if HTML 5 picks up a spec we wouldn't object
janina: Matthew_Atkinson might be something we put on the agenda. we might point out apparent overlap with rel and what we're doing technologically to address some COGA issues
janina: if HTML picks up, we wouldn't object
TAG Response Resolution - media query test page
Sharon: having that complete for TPAC, Matthew_Atkinson ?
Matthew_Atkinson: noted it's on the right track by Sharon and Lionel_Wolberger. up for final review by the time of the next meeting.
Sharon: a page with three different distractions: time ticker, banner, and a third that shows that we're on the element level and not page level
<janina> https://
janina: trying to coordinate all holidays in one location
Sharon: might not be able to make it next week, Matthew_Atkinson? might be 4 weeks without discussing so we can take it to list to discuss
BCI Registry Specification
janina: status of this is that we wanted MichaelC to follow up to e-mail. can't move forward until Russell gives us a response and a google sheet that MichaelC would like to work from
Lionel_Wolberger: we thought MichaelC would give me a draft. would appreciate one
Sharon: wait until after TPAC to follow up with MichaelC?
janina: yes. will need to wait
Respond to issue #203 (Janina)
<Github> https://
janina: will respond to 2 and 3 sometime soon!
Content Module Implementations Status, focus on new candidates
Lionel_Wolberger: more or less where it stood before
janina: implementors will be present at TPAC, so discussion can occur there
janina: might want to ask James (ARIA) about what's happening with Adapt at TPAC