Meeting minutes
<gb> Issue 240 Could we build symbolic annotations with existing Web standards? (by DuncanMacWeb) [i18n-tracker]
WKU for Accessibility Statement: What does an MVP of this use of WKU look like? Link: https://github.com/w3c/adapt/blob/add-explainers/explainers/accessibility-meta.md
matatk: Appreciates github questions from Abhinav
matatk: Discusses best procedures on github
matatk: Suggests voicing comments to date
<matatk> https://
<Abhinav> https://
matatk: reads Q: Do we expect a separate page for login and logout?
matatk: We need to revgisit destinations thinkin; Which are key?
matatk: Suggests logout won't stay, but it's how we first received the list
Abhinav: Concerned not always a predictable URI
Abhinav: Also the concerned that login dialog is often buried in page content
Abhinav: Also a timeout concern
Abhinav: Also i18n
matatk: Notes WKU are intended to redirect to a page;
matatk: Also intended to be machine readable
matatk: So if the login URI has some custom value, that's a small minority of use cases so seems not the pattern to base our approach
matatk: We do need to know more precisely whether our expectation is correct and to quantify it
matatk: WKU are pages one can access regardless of where one's currently brosed to
matatk: We do however have multiple options for applying our destinations
matatk: e.g. rhel
matatk: espect some sitewide destinations will always appear, but some not because page specific
Abhinav: Asks about how we expect a particular portion of the page to be highlight
matatk: Notes there's nothing in the explainer about highlighting -- suppose we could look into whether idiomatic by browser
matatk: Also notes that fragments of pages will be a common use case and likely a key one
matatk: Notes further that 'help' may be to local task, not a global help
matatk: We can show tghe user the phrasing they prefer, e.g. login, sign on, etc
matatk: i18n is made possible because we're machine readable
janina: I think we do want to highlight which part of the page contains the desired activity (e.g. log in).
janina: Maybe we need to talk to WHATWG or COGA.
janina: Don't think we have a reliable mechansim to assure ourselves that anything that is a link that says "help" is local or global?
Abhinav: Asks what's machine readable
matatk: We have common destinations supplied by COGA; suggesting standirdizing those, just like attrib values we get allow UX to present verbiage user wants, but perform action based on standard
matatk: What we call it isn't important, it's the standard definition that does
Abhinav: Who's calling?
matatk: Not the user
matatk: Expect uA will provide list of known destinations available on a page
Abhinav: Is it a value URI for browser extension?
matatk: Initially, yes. Eventually we'd like to see direct browser support
matatk: Would it help for me to make a PR for each explainer?
<gb> Issue 240 Could we build symbolic annotations with existing Web standards? (by DuncanMacWeb) [i18n-tracker]
Report of the Issue 240 Link: w3c/adapt#240
Report of the Issue 240 Link: w3c/adapt#240
russell: Have possibly important news
russell: The unicode proposal is now publically available; seems to have been accepted modulo minor edits
russell: While working on doc requested, i found myself changing viewpoint
<russell> https://
russell: Notes that BCI IDs are included by unicode in its standard
russell: May be a game changer
russell: Regarding our terminology discussion; probably most dispositive is performed by Unicode
<russell> https://
russell: of course lots of contention and disagreement on terms; probably a historical artifact
janina: Sounds like the only difference between our registry and Unicode is that ours may be more up to date because there could be a years-long gap between Unicode updates? I have no metrics to judge this by.
russell: The IDs in Unicode are just for the characters. There will be a majority of IDs not in Unicode because compound symbols get new IDs, but no new Unicode symbol would be needed.
russell: Of all 1400 chars in Unicode
russell: Total in BCI including chars in 6200
matatk: Wonders whether the "just use unicode" proposers are aware of this discrepency?
matatk: Also impedes authoring significantly
matatk: How does one delineate end of concept? Easy for us because one value; but ultimately we may paint ourselves into a corner without a delimeter
russell: ultimate delimeter is a space -- just like an English word
russell: Big problem is to represent a concept not defined as an ID until the bliss word is created for it
janina: To russell's last point: I don't think we can solve that, but we can minimize it.
janina: The problem will persist because new concepts will always be formed, as new words and new word meanings are eternally being created
matatk: We want mapped concepts between symbol sets; but we can only know about concepts we've been told of
matatk: Ad hoc isn't good enough because we can be more responsive than unicode
matatk: xkcd ('one [more] standard to rule them all') isn't necessarily a good approach; BCI is already very good
matatk: We need community consensus
matatk: We need a process symbol set creators can easily support
matatk: Seems clear to me we need something on top of unicode
russell: Easy to create id for new concept and register it; creating the BCI authorized is harder
russell: Notes unicode is maintaining emoji compounds; perhaps they might support
janina: The key is responsiveness to our end users, which includes content authors, and symbol creators.
… Some people support living standards, that are all up to date. This process (Unicode) can take years to update.
… We do need a balance, where authorized values are updated relatively quickly.
… Worth investigating how often the Unicode compounds will be updated.