W3C

– DRAFT –
(MEETING TITLE)

09 December 2024

Attendees

Present
Alan, IrfanA, matatk, PaulG
Regrets
-
Chair
-
Scribe
matatk

Meeting minutes

Agenda Review, Membership & Announcements

Update from Matthew on documents: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pronunciation/2024Nov/0006.html

<PaulG> matatk: the first three are straight-forward and we can decide what to do with. The others aren't as clear.

<PaulG> ... we need an explainer but it's not usually in the TR space. It has a well-known TAG format which we should compy.

<PaulG> ... consistency in the format helps with sharing it widely

<PaulG> ... we'll use that to help others understand the problems we're trying to solve and considered alternatives (which would never be in a spec)

<PaulG> ... If we can decide which documents we'll proceed with, we can separate out the use cases as we discussed last time.

<PaulG> ... notes from the 11th with Janina confirms this approach of splitting the spec up into smaller chunks that might be better fits.

<PaulG> ... We need to "fix the things you can't do on the web" by restarting the documents with just the problem statements.

<PaulG> ... We'll need to also clean up the "dangling" specs that we're not moving forward with.

PaulG: We also have good content in the wiki that we don't want to lose
… e.g. reasons for delays - we need to show a compelling reason for everyone (noting that our educational partners were adamant that it's core to the required functionality).

<PaulG> PaulG: do we want a second repo, share the current, or something else?

<PaulG> matatk: it's up to us how we want to organize but we can make changes later. We can also, maybe, keep the TR space but rehome the repo for a doc

<PaulG> PaulG: how do we want to handle facilitators?

<PaulG> I'd want the future facilitators to have the organization that makes the most sense for them and what they want to focus on.

<PaulG> matatk: we can seek APA input for the split

<PaulG> ... like a horizontal review based solely on the use cases document

<PaulG> but we can also do the community group approach which may have some advantages to incubate ideas and source new ideas

IrfanA: There may be an existing CG that could help with some of our use cases? We should look.

*group discussion about docs*

1. https://www.w3.org/TR/pronunciation-gap-analysis-and-use-cases/ - deprecate

2. https://www.w3.org/TR/pronunciation-gap-analysis/ - update, using sec 4 from 1

3. https://www.w3.org/TR/pronunciation-use-cases/ - update, w/o implementation detail (our north star as PaulG mentioned)

4. https://www.w3.org/TR/pronunciation-user-scenarios/ - fold into 3, and update as needed

5. https://www.w3.org/TR/spoken-html/ - no

6. https://www.w3.org/TR/pronunciation-explainer/ - yes, but not at this URL

PaulG: Could APA chairs discuss in planning about how to coordinate the split, and who'll make decisions on it?

matatk: yes, sure, will continue to bring Janina and Roy in on this.

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 238 (Fri Oct 18 20:51:13 2024 UTC).

Diagnostics

All speakers: IrfanA, matatk, PaulG

Active on IRC: Alan, IrfanA, matatk, PaulG