Meeting minutes
WKD
matatk: Little to report just now ...
matatk: Suggests a quick read of last meeting (with COGA) to consider followups
matatk: Have not yet had opportunity to followup with the AC meeting person who expressed WKD concern
Abhinav: Happy with presentation; no specific questions for COGA.
janina: I think they were saying that it was not critical for WKDs to be discoverable from the current page only, rather than site-wide, particularly if the toolbar icon is badged. Though some top-level WKDs are important, like help. What does everyone think?
Abhinav: Want to understand who's our target user?
Abhinav: By definition tWK are site wide
matatk: Believe it's machine to machine; so user agent can present appropriate to user -- in a form the user prefers
matatk: Yes, the ietf wk are site wide, but we're looking at how to help people navigate
matatk: we believe the ietf is useful, but we might take another approach, e.g. rhel with added values
matatk: that would be discovered from current page
matatk: We wanted COGA to understand how important site wide is to them
matatk: Don't believe we have a clear answer from them
Abhinav: expresses concern about maintaining rhel
matatk: yes
matatk: Don't believe we're saying we want to switch to rhel now
matatk: But, yes. Browser would need to parse; and site would need to maintain
matatk: Most people I've discussed with have had concerns about IETF; but seem sanguine about maintaining page content
matatk: Concerned that using both approaches might confuse users
matatk: A bit difficult to understand now, but we need to explore a bit more; would people understand this isn't a complete list for the site?
janina: I've been using 'IETF' for well-known URLs (side-wide) and 'rel' for in-page.
janina: I'm not sure the user should know/care whether the approach underneath is IETF or rel
Abhinav: So machine to machine, I proposed a syntax to provide visibility to the user? Any problem with that?
matatk: Problem with user not caring which approach agree from the underlying tech
matatk: Problem, if we use both and user has no way of knowing and the list will be different on different pages
matatk: matatk: Will ask whether IETF folks might be amenable to a small feature upgrade, i.e. a directory
Abhinav: My understanding is that the content served at the well-known URLs is up to us, so we have flexibility on that.
matatk: ACK; let's check the spec.
matatk: ack to Abhinav
Abhinav: concerned we may get a more complex set; better look if we massage appropriately
Synbols (issue 240)
News from COGA
janina: E A Draffan was on the call yesterday and we got into symbols.
janina: I tested the theory as to whether the Unicode approach would be adequate. We had to separate out the concepts of user agent and authoring content.
janina: The User Agents want the simplest way to display what they're going to display without having to read another registry of data values. That was resolved quickly.
janina: The concern that was expressed was on the authoring side.
janina: E A wasn't convinced that any non-expert could author the content. I said that's probably right - you can't rely on a computer tool to do perfect translations. If you're doing this on a word-by-word basis I agree. But asked what about chapter titles in videos? Is there reasonable expectation that it would deliver benefits to people there
then it's worth doing. Note our remit came from COGA.
janina: Also we are focusing on specific use cases like chapter titles, procedural content, etc.
janina: That was pretty-much signed off on - I thought I should send some links, like to issue 240 - any others?
matatk: Is 240 the best issue - could lead down technical rabbit hole - especially if use case already validated?
janina: Maybe we should invite E A to this call?
matatk: Notes we're currently unable to hear Russell
matatk: Good idea is set up a conversation -- invite to a call?
matatk: (Noting that Russel's audio is not working, cannot hear him.)
matatk: We need very specific questions for EA
janina: lionel: Russell has no mic at the moment
janina: What was significant to the discussion yesterday is that we are not trying to write a symbol above every word, that is not what we are building
… they mentioned an issue paper that they could not locate.
matatk: We should put on the agenda, this follow-up with EA
<Abhinav> 1) RFC 8615 on Well-Known URIs can be found at https://
<Abhinav> 2) Section 3 gives good details
<Abhinav> 3) There is paragraph:
<Abhinav> "Note that this specification defines neither how to determine the
<Abhinav> hostname to use to find the well-known URI for a particular
<Abhinav> application, **nor the scope of the metadata discovered by
<Abhinav> dereferencing the well-known URI**; both should be defined by the
<Abhinav> application itself."
<Abhinav> 4) Apologies for commenting between different discussion....
Thanks Abhinav, re the WK info
Here is my mock-up for 240: https://