Meeting minutes
Meeting WAI-
Chair Lionel_Wolberger
Introduction, Any Updates?
Lionel_Wolberger: Any updates?
Lionel_Wolberger: Notes his participation at Zero Project in Vienna next week
janina: Are we meeting?
Lionel_Wolberger: Yes.
Virtual TPAC submission
janina: We have some time, and should propose a session
… these virtual sessions are something relatively new to W3C
https://
https://
https://
Event is 12 March; Proposals due 29 February
janina: Notes Matthew and I believe we should do session on WKD
Lionel_Wolberger: I propose a "strawman" session, "Well Known Destination Development using Well Known URLs for Accessibility"
Abhinav: Vikas and I would be interested in contributing.
… and you mentioned September?
janina: You are talking about TPAC. Last year was Seville, Spain. In 2024 it will be in Anaheim California
… APA generally has many meetings, and we can address Well Known Destination
… the main goal is joint meetings with other groups, where we have things to iron out or work jointly
Abhinav: More details about March please, vs September
Lionel_Wolberger: Any other proposal? Perhaps symbols?
For reference, our TPAC schedule from 2023 is here:
https://
janina: Symbols has been done.
Github actions and PRs
Lionel_Wolberger: Checks github for new issues or PRs
<matatk> https://
Symbols: Issue 240 Way Forward
matatk:
We're coming around to accepting use of Unicode
matatk: Adapt has come to accept this idea of using Unicode as a keying mechanism
matatk: We want to file a comment to that effect but also note author considerations
… this raises questions around authoring
<matatk> https://
matatk: we want to surface those authoring considerations back to the people (and Unicode people) who raised the issue
… the gist is, affirmative: Yes we can use this method
matatk: Msg has been in draft and edited for clear communication
… Russel has been fine-tuning the methodology
matatk: Reviews current msg draft
… we have crafted a proposed response draft
matatk: If our response is accepted, we return to WHAT for our attribute
Lionel_Wolberger: Do we still expect a W3C registry based on BCI IDs?
Russell: Believe conversation was what IDs to use in the registry
matatk: From authoring perspective, purpose of registry is a dictionary to find the concept identifier
matatk: So yes to a registry, but phps using unicode
matatk: We want to avoid people thinking they can only use single symbols
Lionel_Wolberger: So the registry will provide key values code points for concepts to be used in web content?
matatk: We need to add code points
Russell: Yes, we need registry to translate to other symbol sets
Lionel_Wolberger: So if I want to mark my content, I can find a concept that most closely matches and get an ID to put in my content?
Russell: Yes
Lionel_Wolberger: Asks procfess in ml, will turn to the registry to find the concept I'm mapping which will point me to an ID to put in my content
matatk: Yes, though this could be built into tooling which would still use the registry as a backend
Lionel_Wolberger: And if I fail to find a close enough entry, can i construct my own by using unicode concatination?
matatk: We need to make sure we have an identified process and document
Russell: Yes
Russell: What someone might come up with as their concatination may be unique and may not match what would be commonly used for that concept
Russell: There would also be a difference for other symbol sets
Lionel_Wolberger: So, if I understand 240, the question was why built on BCI rather than unicode?
Lionel_Wolberger: Our considered answer is that unicode is close enough? Correct?
Russell: We need to clearify terminology
Russell: It's not "Bliss" but the Bliss IDs
Russell: proposal was that unicode could be relied on in perpetuity
Lionel_Wolberger: When unicode will finalize?
Russell: A few small nits to iron out; e.g. BCI has equivalents to EN for alpha numerics, and Unicode doesn't care for that kind of duplication
Russell: Personally, I agree with Unicode; why not use them?
Lionel_Wolberger: So we have a race condition
Lionel_Wolberger: proposing we register both id values
Russell: Agree
Russell: we're doing that anyway
Russell: Will talk with Michael about this; this is publically available now
Russell: Believe it's now OK to use
janina: Want to check on the trade-off moving to Unicode as a keying ID
… Unicode will never have the latest Bliss symbols, as Bliss is developing new symbols
Russell: When (and if) new Bliss symbols will arise, they will be constructed by aggregating existing glyphs
<Zakim> janina, you wanted to ask what the trade-off is
Russell: so having Unicode represented might actually make that process easier
Lionel_Wolberger: I see this next action pending, add a column to the Registry that allows adding the Unicode equivilant
matatk: Russell and I will post a proposed reply to Issue#240 on the email
<gb> Issue 240 not found
janina: We are currently in CR, so we will likely need to rev the document
Issues raised in the Well Known Destination/URL Git
<matatk> https://
Lionel_Wolberger: Asks next steps?
matatk: There are questions we need to address in the Explainer
matatk: Abhinav raised some issues that should be covered in the explainer
matatk: I'll have a first go at a spec draft in parallel with Explainer
matatk: Will do so in standard W3C doc format on github
Abhinav: So we could suggest pr against your draft?
matatk: Absolutely
matatk: For start we're just going for WKU -- the main one to begin
Abhinav: asks what's included
matatk: We're working out what belongs in what Explainer/spec; let me start and you can suggest pr
matatk: Where things fit in w3c is one reason for the iterated approach
Abhinav: Don't fully understand reporting, for example
matatk: We welcome contributions
matatk: Reiterates that spec and explainers are spearate docs in W3C
matatk: Will create these in form suitable for W3C process on github
Lionel_Wolberger: Asks how to tie wkd proposals to our work from recent years; how to ground?
Lionel_Wolberger: Offer to write reqs
matatk: Note that Explainer has a template and includes use cases