– DRAFT –
Adapt Task Force Weekly Meeting Monday 7 November

Adapt Symbols Module Status

Lionel_Wolberger: looking good. some discussion on the list re: naming the short name of the module

Lionel_Wolberger: let's start with module and text itself

<Roy> https://w3c.github.io/adapt/symbols/

Lionel_Wolberger: first read. nothing popped out. any comments?

Lionel_Wolberger: I think we're good on this. personally take an action to do one more read. if I approve, do we need any other approval?

janina: timelines in the registry call, won't have the first public WD until the 7th of December (hopefully). we need a normative reference into that timeline, so ours is dependent on Registry moving forward

janina: if there are problems we will have a week to fix. plan A is that we will make publication by the 15th

Roy: correct, Janina.

Roy: in our draft, we mention the BCI Index Value, we may need to update this paragraph

janina: we should proceed as if this is happening. should re-write assuming we have a TR document for Registry

Lionel_Wolberger: I'm comfortable with this. close connection between BCI Registry and Adapt Symbols CR

matatk: I'm concerned about the publication dates. if we publish in mid-December there's no time to fix problems if found by TAG

<Lionel_Wolberger> +1 to Matt's concern about delaying CR

matatk: can we give TAG a version and explain the situation so that we may be able to approve before end of year

janina: a little more delay than we wanted, but this has been present for some time.

Roy: Filipe booked for next Monday regarding this

janina: suspect there will not be any major concerns as at TPAC positive thoughts were expressed regarding the finalization of the symbol set. Rossen was encouraging regarding the status

matatk: happy to help with Explainer.

matatk: other action would be to update the reference to the PDF. we'll replace with a reference to the Registry

<Roy> https://w3c.github.io/adapt-registry/

matatk: end note? we are putting to draft version, can point to final version once Registry is finalized

<matatk> s/Fillipe/Phillipe/

<janina> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-adapt/2022Nov/0011.html

Lionel_Wolberger: Mat concerned about putting off CR. I +1'ed that.

<Lionel_Wolberger> Why is it not sufficient-- this reference

<Lionel_Wolberger> "Until such time as a W3C BCI Registry specification is available with standardized realtime URI referencing, here is a link to the BCI numbers (PDF) [BCI-AV] and additional language translations (PDF) [BCI-AV-additional-language] at the time of this publication and the copyright licensing from BCI. "

Lionel_Wolberger: what changed in the TAG feedback that caused this to be insufficient

janina: we can't go to CR with that reference. it has to be normative.

Lionel_Wolberger: weren't worried about non-normative nature of the sentence before.

janina: we were referring to the PDF before. we are dropping the PDF.

Lionel_Wolberger: must we drop the PDF to go to CR?

janina: yes. we don't want technology built from a PDF. we want people to use the Registry

Lionel_Wolberger: want to publish in 2022. I have no issues pointing to a PDF

janina: don't think this will carry approval upstream, as non-normative. to try to shoehorn based on the PDF because there may be an issue with the Regsitry may look a little iffy

janina: a couple of things have happened since September. first, they found this to be architecturally sound. second, the BCI Registry has been looked at and the direction and messaging is correct. the only thing delaying is one of the key participants is on vacation for two weeks

janina: we can still make the timeline but I'm not going to prevent vacation for this.

janina: secondly, we have WHATWG saying don't publish with data dash, publish with adapt dash

janina: updates from Becky and/or Matthew on this.

Lionel_Wolberger: Matthew, any progress on getting adapt-?

janina: in the minutes from Vancouver that they would prefer we would use adapt dash (adapt-)

<matatk> https://www.w3.org/2022/09/13-apa-minutes.html#t03

Lionel_Wolberger: when can we send the draft message? does it depend on using fixing up the Registry reference?

janina: no.

<matatk> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-adapt/2022Nov/0008.html

<janina> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-adapt/2022Nov/0008.html

Lionel_Wolberger: CR depends on Registry spec first public working draft and our formalized request pursuant to our conversation with WHATWG at TPAC

matatk: should get this done as soon as possible (reviewing draft message). I haven't finished sending the research on the list. looking at things like "do we need to look at other things besides rel?" we may decide to use rel and may not.

matatk: did some looking into other things. sent some research and will send to list as soon as I can. I do think that there is a strong likelihood that there will be other prefixes. will send more information to the list as soon as possible

matatk: don't think we're blocked on that path

janina: if the list is short, does the question of having a prefix at all come up again?

matatk: not sure. possibility to be done in a lot of ways. hard to say at the moment

janina: safer path may be to indicate we're highly confident that the prefix will be more than one attribute pair. we will find some uses for it, even if we do other things with CSS and rel

matatk: will be easier to add new things with appropriate names if we don't need to worry about interfering with other HTML attributes

janina: we still believe a prefix is important

janina: and we have a rationale for the adapt- prefix

Lionel_Wolberger: now have clear dependencies on publication. can have everything else wait until next time

all: thanks for your efforts Roy