IRC log of annotation on 2016-05-27
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 14:30:17 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #annotation
- 14:30:17 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/05/27-annotation-irc
- 14:30:19 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 14:30:19 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #annotation
- 14:30:21 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be 2666
- 14:30:21 [Zakim]
- ok, trackbot
- 14:30:22 [trackbot]
- Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
- 14:30:22 [trackbot]
- Date: 27 May 2016
- 14:30:43 [ivan]
- Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/083301d1b69e$b062d490$11287db0$@illinois.edu
- 14:30:52 [ivan]
- ivan has changed the topic to: Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/083301d1b69e$b062d490$11287db0$@illinois.edu
- 14:50:53 [azaroth]
- azaroth has joined #annotation
- 14:52:03 [azaroth]
- azaroth has changed the topic to: Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016May/0259.html
- 14:55:05 [TimCole]
- TimCole has joined #annotation
- 14:55:36 [azaroth]
- Present+ Rob_Sanderson
- 14:57:29 [TimCole]
- present+ Tim_Cole
- 15:01:00 [bjdmeest]
- bjdmeest has joined #annotation
- 15:02:26 [ShaneM_]
- ShaneM_ has joined #annotation
- 15:02:28 [takeshi]
- takeshi has joined #annotation
- 15:03:02 [ShaneM_]
- present+ ShaneM_
- 15:03:33 [tilgovi]
- tilgovi has joined #annotation
- 15:03:53 [tilgovi]
- tilgovi has joined #annotation
- 15:04:02 [takeshi]
- Present+ Takeshi_Kanai
- 15:04:06 [TimCole]
- https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=me422bef2c6690852d7d9a2cf39f591b8
- 15:04:55 [bjdmeest]
- scribenick
- 15:04:59 [bjdmeest]
- scribenick bjdmeest
- 15:05:16 [azaroth]
- scribenick: bjdmeest
- 15:05:32 [bjdmeest]
- TimCole: agenda: approve minutes of the F2F, talking about issues, and talk about testing
- 15:05:43 [ivan]
- Chair: Tim, Rob
- 15:06:18 [TimCole]
- PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the F2F are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/05/17-annotation-minutes.html, https://www.w3.org/2016/05/18-annotation-minutes.html
- 15:06:23 [ivan]
- +1
- 15:06:29 [bjdmeest]
- TimCole: minutes are in two parts (two days)
- 15:06:32 [bjdmeest]
- ... any concerns?
- 15:06:35 [TimCole]
- +1
- 15:06:44 [bjdmeest]
- +1
- 15:06:46 [bigbluehat]
- +1
- 15:06:47 [azaroth]
- +1
- 15:06:48 [PaoloCiccarese]
- PaoloCiccarese has joined #annotation
- 15:06:51 [ShaneM_]
- +1
- 15:07:02 [bjdmeest]
- RESOLUTION: Minutes of the F2F are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/05/17-annotation-minutes.html, https://www.w3.org/2016/05/18-annotation-minutes.html
- 15:07:12 [TimCole]
- Topic: Issues
- 15:07:34 [TimCole]
- https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aopen+label%3Ai18n-review+-label%3Aeditor_action+-label%3Apostpone
- 15:07:37 [bjdmeest]
- TimCole: Had good meeting with i18n WG yesterday
- 15:07:53 [bjdmeest]
- ... We are down to one i18n issue open, #227
- 15:08:17 [bjdmeest]
- ... about reference to text encoding
- 15:08:53 [bjdmeest]
- azaroth: #227 is also some editorial changes (lowercase/uppercase naming)
- 15:09:05 [bjdmeest]
- ... also, the exact normalization that should occur on the text was not clear
- 15:09:19 [bjdmeest]
- ... there was general consensus around code points rather than code units
- 15:09:29 [bjdmeest]
- ... i18n will provide some text for us to put in the spec
- 15:09:35 [tilgovi]
- Present+ Randall_Leeds
- 15:09:49 [ivan]
- Present+ Ivan
- 15:09:52 [bjdmeest]
- ... regarding the actual normalization, there was no agreement
- 15:10:07 [ivan]
- Present?
- 15:10:08 [bjdmeest]
- ... i18n will discuss, and get back to us by next week
- 15:10:12 [ivan]
- zakim, who is here?
- 15:10:12 [Zakim]
- Present: Rob_Sanderson, Tim_Cole, ShaneM_, Takeshi_Kanai, Randall_Leeds, Ivan
- 15:10:15 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see PaoloCiccarese, tilgovi, takeshi, ShaneM_, bjdmeest, TimCole, azaroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, ivan, dwhly, shepazu, ShaneM, ben_thatmustbeme, Loqi, csarven, bigbluehat,
- 15:10:15 [Zakim]
- ... aaronpk, trackbot, stain, rhiaro, nickstenn, timeless
- 15:10:21 [bjdmeest]
- ... hopefully, we can easily accept and close
- 15:10:29 [ivan]
- Present+ Benjamin_Young
- 15:10:38 [bjdmeest]
- TimCole: Is there any concern?
- 15:10:47 [bjdmeest]
- Present+ Ben_De_Meester
- 15:10:56 [bjdmeest]
- ... no? So we are in good shape on that issue
- 15:10:59 [ivan]
- present+ Doug
- 15:11:05 [TimCole]
- https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/labels/i18n-review
- 15:11:12 [ivan]
- present+ Paolo
- 15:11:14 [bjdmeest]
- ... since we only talked to i18n 24h ago, see the link above
- 15:11:21 [bjdmeest]
- ... all issues have been moved to editorial action
- 15:11:52 [bjdmeest]
- ivan: most of the decided things were already discussed on the mailing list
- 15:12:06 [bjdmeest]
- ... mostly, we agreed on what was decided beforehand on the call
- 15:12:25 [bjdmeest]
- azaroth: the only significant change was issue #213 (0..1 languages)
- 15:12:38 [ShaneM]
- zakim, who is here?
- 15:12:38 [Zakim]
- Present: Rob_Sanderson, Tim_Cole, ShaneM_, Takeshi_Kanai, Randall_Leeds, Ivan, Benjamin_Young, Ben_De_Meester, Doug, Paolo
- 15:12:41 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see PaoloCiccarese, tilgovi, takeshi, bjdmeest, TimCole, azaroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, ivan, dwhly, shepazu, ShaneM, ben_thatmustbeme, Loqi, csarven, bigbluehat, aaronpk,
- 15:12:41 [Zakim]
- ... trackbot, stain, rhiaro, nickstenn, timeless
- 15:12:43 [bjdmeest]
- ... we accepted to add an extra `processingLanguage` attribute
- 15:12:47 [ShaneM]
- present+ ShaneM
- 15:12:51 [ShaneM]
- present- ShaneM_
- 15:13:16 [azaroth]
- Accepted proposal: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/213#issuecomment-221098949
- 15:13:20 [bjdmeest]
- ... That's the easiest way to escape the conundrum we had
- 15:13:49 [bjdmeest]
- ivan: unless Adisson comes with a change for #227 (and we have to change a bit), we have closed all i18n issues
- 15:13:54 [PaoloCiccarese]
- Present+ Paolo_Ciccarese
- 15:14:20 [bjdmeest]
- azaroth: the specs in github are updated, so they are waited to be published, for the issues to be closed
- 15:14:31 [ShaneM]
- I am so sorry I raised that
- 15:14:45 [bjdmeest]
- ivan: this discussion about URI vs IRI vs ... keeps on going
- 15:15:14 [bjdmeest]
- ... personally, at this point, keeping what we have, and maybe add something like what Shane referred to (cfr RDFa doc), is perfectly fine
- 15:15:30 [ShaneM]
- The RDFa text is fine - and I liked Richard's comment
- 15:15:47 [bjdmeest]
- TimCole: is that already an editor action?
- 15:15:49 [bjdmeest]
- azaroth: yes
- 15:16:16 [bjdmeest]
- ivan: so the resolution is that we keep IRI, but add the text that Shane mentioned
- 15:17:02 [azaroth]
- PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Use IRI in Protocol with explanation in the terminology section to explain the distinction
- 15:17:09 [azaroth]
- +1
- 15:17:10 [bjdmeest]
- +1
- 15:17:11 [takeshi]
- +1
- 15:17:12 [ivan]
- +1
- 15:17:14 [ShaneM]
- +1
- 15:17:16 [TimCole]
- +1
- 15:17:20 [dwhly]
- Present+ Dan_Whaley
- 15:17:20 [PaoloCiccarese]
- +1
- 15:17:29 [bjdmeest]
- RESOLUTION: Use IRI in Protocol with explanation in the terminology section to explain the distinction
- 15:17:46 [TimCole]
- Topic: More issues
- 15:17:48 [TimCole]
- https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aopen+-label%3Ai18n-review+-label%3Aeditor_action+-label%3Apostpone
- 15:18:15 [bjdmeest]
- TimCole: these are the remaining open issues (6)
- 15:18:50 [bjdmeest]
- azaroth: we can quickly agree with #240, #230, and #228
- 15:18:57 [bjdmeest]
- TimCole: so about #240
- 15:19:03 [bjdmeest]
- ... pretty straightforward
- 15:19:12 [ivan]
- Issue #240, Remove purpose=commenting requirement from bodyValue
- 15:19:16 [ivan]
- https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/240
- 15:19:36 [TimCole]
- q?
- 15:19:47 [bjdmeest]
- azaroth: at F2F and iAnnotate, we heard a lot about the purpose 'tagging' for textualBody
- 15:20:31 [bjdmeest]
- TimCole: so only for plain text string
- 15:20:45 [azaroth]
- Link: https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#string-body
- 15:20:46 [bjdmeest]
- ... nothing can be on that, so we assigned a purpose
- 15:21:06 [bjdmeest]
- azaroth: specifically, we remove the fifth bullet from https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#string-body
- 15:21:52 [shepazu]
- s/Use IRI in Protocol with explanation in the terminology section to explain the distinction/Use IRI in Protocol with explanation in the terminology section to explain the distinction, specifically this text from RDFa Core https://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#h-note1/
- 15:21:55 [azaroth]
- PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Remove the requirement that purpose of bodyValue be interpreted as commenting, as can use the motivation of the Annotation without ambiguity
- 15:22:03 [ivan]
- +1
- 15:22:10 [azaroth]
- +1
- 15:22:10 [TimCole]
- +1
- 15:22:11 [bjdmeest]
- +1
- 15:22:16 [takeshi]
- +1
- 15:22:16 [ShaneM]
- +0
- 15:22:20 [bigbluehat]
- +1
- 15:22:31 [shepazu]
- +0
- 15:22:36 [PaoloCiccarese]
- +1
- 15:22:41 [bjdmeest]
- RESOLUTION: Remove the requirement that purpose of bodyValue be interpreted as commenting, as can use the motivation of the Annotation without ambiguity
- 15:22:44 [ivan]
- rrsagent, pointer?
- 15:22:44 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2016/05/27-annotation-irc#T15-22-44
- 15:23:23 [bjdmeest]
- ivan: ok, issue closed
- 15:23:39 [TimCole]
- topic: issue 230
- 15:23:46 [TimCole]
- https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/230
- 15:23:52 [bjdmeest]
- ivan: this is about reverting a resolution we made
- 15:24:14 [TimCole]
- this issues is about our namespace url
- 15:24:16 [bjdmeest]
- ... that resolution was based on the fact that W3C would encourage HTTPS for voc-docs
- 15:24:18 [shepazu]
- q+
- 15:24:36 [bjdmeest]
- ... that was wrong, there has been an official declaration on the mailing list
- 15:24:44 [csarven]
- Present+ csarven
- 15:24:46 [TimCole]
- ack shepazu
- 15:24:59 [bjdmeest]
- ... so we don't have to change OA to WA, I propose to close #230 without further action
- 15:25:28 [bjdmeest]
- ivan: that official statement was very long discussed
- 15:25:48 [bjdmeest]
- ... I will try and find the rationale
- 15:25:58 [bjdmeest]
- TimCole: so we stick with OA?
- 15:26:05 [bjdmeest]
- ... from discussions I had, that seems a good idea
- 15:26:07 [TimCole]
- q?
- 15:26:49 [azaroth]
- PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Maintain the use of .../ns/oa# as the namespace, including the use of http and not https
- 15:26:53 [azaroth]
- +1
- 15:26:57 [ivan]
- -> Discussion on SemWeb mailing list, thread starting at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2016May/0082.html
- 15:27:00 [ivan]
- +1
- 15:27:01 [TimCole]
- +1
- 15:27:03 [bjdmeest]
- +1
- 15:27:04 [shepazu]
- -0
- 15:27:08 [ShaneM]
- +1
- 15:27:08 [bigbluehat]
- +1
- 15:27:12 [takeshi]
- +1
- 15:27:16 [ivan]
- -> see also https://www.w3.org/blog/2016/05/https-and-the-semantic-weblinked-data/
- 15:27:28 [PaoloCiccarese]
- +1
- 15:27:32 [bjdmeest]
- RESOLUTION: Maintain the use of .../ns/oa# as the namespace, including the use of http and not https
- 15:27:54 [TimCole]
- Topic: issue 228
- 15:28:08 [TimCole]
- https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/228
- 15:28:09 [bjdmeest]
- azaroth: about testing of the protocol
- 15:28:37 [TimCole]
- q+
- 15:28:50 [bjdmeest]
- ... for several sections, there isn't any guidance on the status codes, e.g., we didn't mention status code 200 for successful actions
- 15:28:55 [TimCole]
- ack tim
- 15:29:08 [bjdmeest]
- ... this is just an issues about adding those codes
- 15:29:56 [bjdmeest]
- azaroth: these codes would make it a more useful spec
- 15:30:13 [bjdmeest]
- ... if you don't support PUT, you should return 405
- 15:30:34 [bjdmeest]
- ... however, if you don't support anything, you can just always return 405, and have a compliant server
- 15:30:55 [bjdmeest]
- TimCole: so not a matter of compliance testing, but some guidance on successful implementations
- 15:31:00 [bjdmeest]
- azaroth: yes
- 15:31:23 [azaroth]
- PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Add successful HTTP status codes for the different operations in the protocol document
- 15:31:29 [bigbluehat]
- Present+ Benjamin_Young
- 15:31:33 [azaroth]
- +1
- 15:31:34 [ivan]
- +1
- 15:31:36 [bjdmeest]
- +1
- 15:31:37 [TimCole]
- +1
- 15:31:39 [bigbluehat]
- +1
- 15:31:41 [tilgovi]
- +1
- 15:31:42 [PaoloCiccarese]
- +1
- 15:31:45 [takeshi]
- +1
- 15:31:46 [ShaneM]
- +1
- 15:32:03 [ivan]
- rrsagent, pointer?
- 15:32:03 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2016/05/27-annotation-irc#T15-32-03
- 15:32:05 [bjdmeest]
- RESOLUTION: Add successful HTTP status codes for the different operations in the protocol document
- 15:32:46 [TimCole]
- Topic: issue 231
- 15:32:57 [bjdmeest]
- azaroth: a proposal of a new feature
- 15:32:58 [ivan]
- https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/231
- 15:33:01 [TimCole]
- https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/231
- 15:33:29 [bjdmeest]
- ... we noticed that we didn't have any a11y information
- 15:33:44 [bjdmeest]
- ... also, we looked at the IDPF use of AO
- 15:33:49 [ShaneM]
- note that I have appointed myself the A11Y liason for this group.
- 15:34:02 [bjdmeest]
- ... they added an a11y feature
- 15:34:14 [ivan]
- q+
- 15:34:17 [bjdmeest]
- ... similar to our construct for audience
- 15:34:47 [bjdmeest]
- ... [see the example in the issue]
- 15:35:02 [bjdmeest]
- ... this adds a new cross domain key
- 15:35:12 [bjdmeest]
- ... we adopt an existing pattern
- 15:35:12 [TimCole]
- ack ivan
- 15:35:15 [TimCole]
- q+
- 15:35:33 [fjh]
- fjh has joined #annotation
- 15:35:39 [bjdmeest]
- ivan: IDPB and EPUB WG have a strong set of a11y requirements
- 15:35:51 [bjdmeest]
- ... they work with schema.org to enlarge it for a11y
- 15:36:06 [TimCole]
- ack tim
- 15:36:10 [bjdmeest]
- ... this is a fairly stable and well managed set of terms on schema.org, that we can rely on
- 15:36:29 [bjdmeest]
- TimCole: there are a lot of properties that might be useful for a body or target
- 15:37:00 [bjdmeest]
- ... in general, we said: if you have a vocabulary for this, use it, but we don't put a lot of those in
- 15:37:19 [bjdmeest]
- ... are there other vocabularies out there, that we can use?
- 15:37:24 [ivan]
- q+
- 15:37:27 [fjh]
- rrsagent, generate minutes
- 15:37:28 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/27-annotation-minutes.html fjh
- 15:37:36 [bjdmeest]
- azaroth: a11y is a core feature we should support (just as i18n)
- 15:37:43 [shepazu]
- q+
- 15:37:47 [bjdmeest]
- ... another is rights/license
- 15:37:53 [bjdmeest]
- ... they all seem pretty fundamental
- 15:37:55 [ivan]
- ivan- later
- 15:38:05 [TimCole]
- q?
- 15:38:09 [bjdmeest]
- ... if we can get all people to do one thing, we achieve interoperability
- 15:38:14 [TimCole]
- ack shep
- 15:38:29 [bjdmeest]
- shepazu: I strongly support this extra key
- 15:38:39 [bjdmeest]
- ... this is not domain-specific, but functionality-specific
- 15:38:52 [bjdmeest]
- ... if we don't include it, people will do it differently, or people won't do it at all
- 15:39:10 [bjdmeest]
- ... included, it is more probably it will be filled in
- 15:39:40 [bjdmeest]
- ... also, there is the matter that annotations can be used specifically for a11y
- 15:40:03 [bjdmeest]
- ... we have already seen people annotating images and videos to add text descriptions
- 15:40:12 [TimCole]
- ack ivan
- 15:40:16 [bjdmeest]
- ... there is already a bunch of use cases that would benefit from this
- 15:40:20 [tilgovi]
- Is this only about using annotation to add accessibility features, or also about making annotations accessible?
- 15:40:25 [azaroth]
- PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Add accessibilityFeature as a property in the model for body and target resources
- 15:41:18 [bjdmeest]
- tilgovi: is this about adding a11y features to the target, or adding a11y to the annotation themselves?
- 15:41:54 [ivan]
- +1
- 15:42:06 [bjdmeest]
- azaroth: what it does, is showing the existing a11y features of the body or target
- 15:42:24 [TimCole]
- +1
- 15:42:28 [bjdmeest]
- +1
- 15:42:40 [ShaneM]
- +1
- 15:42:40 [shepazu]
- if don't have+1
- 15:42:41 [azaroth]
- And the proposed description: http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd2/#accessibility-of-content
- 15:42:42 [tilgovi]
- +1
- 15:42:47 [shepazu]
- +1
- 15:43:15 [bjdmeest]
- RESOLUTION: Add accessibilityFeature as a property in the model for body and target resources
- 15:43:15 [ivan]
- rrsagent, pointer?
- 15:43:15 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2016/05/27-annotation-irc#T15-43-15-1
- 15:45:39 [bjdmeest]
- ivan: let's try and resolve the issue antoine raised via mail, so the editors can have a reviewable version by the end of the week
- 15:45:50 [ivan]
- Antoine's thread starts at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016May/0275.html
- 15:45:54 [bjdmeest]
- azaroth: they want to use annotations to assess the quality of something
- 15:46:05 [bjdmeest]
- ... they don't want to subclass (that's where motivations are for)
- 15:46:19 [bjdmeest]
- ... currently, there is no good fitting existing motivation
- 15:46:34 [bjdmeest]
- ... the reviewing description isn't fitting, because it is too restrictive
- 15:46:47 [bjdmeest]
- ... it currently implies rather being a comment, than an assessment
- 15:47:29 [bjdmeest]
- ... the proposal would be to generalize `reviewing` a bit, to `assesing`
- 15:48:14 [ivan]
- q+
- 15:48:22 [bjdmeest]
- TimCole: when reading the thread, I thought to add a motivation, you suggest replacing one
- 15:48:26 [TimCole]
- ack ivan
- 15:48:32 [shepazu]
- (I think this reveals the underlying problem with motivations in that they are not generalized and don't derive from functional aspects on behaviors)
- 15:48:56 [bjdmeest]
- ivan: the way it comes up, is that there is a document published by another WG, for assessing quality on data
- 15:49:14 [csarven]
- (Sorry not in the call) If parts of assessment of the quality is coming from a controlled vocabulary, oa:classifying might help a little.
- 15:50:28 [TimCole]
- q?
- 15:50:43 [bjdmeest]
- ... the other WG should define an extension, but the current way the extension works, is that the spec says you SHOULD use SKOS-ish things to use a more specific motivation of already existing defined motivations
- 15:51:04 [bjdmeest]
- azaroth: this is an opportunity to fix the too narrow description of the reviewing motivation
- 15:51:17 [bjdmeest]
- TimCole: so, maybe, we should change the SHOULD to MAY?
- 15:51:29 [bjdmeest]
- ivan: I think the SHOULD is fine (it's not a MUST)
- 15:51:30 [shepazu]
- (I appreciate the acknowledgment, but this is a specific patch, not a systemic examination of criteria for inclusion and broad applicability)
- 15:51:52 [azaroth]
- PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Rename "reviewing" to "assessing" and broaden the description
- 15:51:53 [bjdmeest]
- ... in this case, we can solve this one
- 15:52:03 [ivan]
- +1
- 15:52:10 [TimCole]
- +0
- 15:52:10 [azaroth]
- +1
- 15:52:17 [bjdmeest]
- +1
- 15:52:17 [tilgovi]
- +0
- 15:52:19 [shepazu]
- (this seems like it's catering to a particular scholarly community, not a real solution)
- 15:52:21 [shepazu]
- -0
- 15:52:27 [csarven]
- -0
- 15:52:32 [ShaneM]
- +1
- 15:53:03 [fjh]
- -0
- 15:53:26 [bjdmeest]
- azaroth: assessment is also about reviewing, about assessing video bitrate, etc.
- 15:53:41 [shepazu]
- (correction noted, it's data not scholarly, but this still feels arbitrary)
- 15:54:13 [shepazu]
- q+
- 15:54:17 [bjdmeest]
- ... some community that wants to do reviewing, can make a skos:narrower `assessment`
- 15:54:36 [TimCole]
- ack shep
- 15:54:46 [csarven]
- "assessing" sounds more specific than "reviewing"
- 15:54:51 [bjdmeest]
- azaroth: let's, by wednesday next week, make sure we have agreement on this using github-issue tracker
- 15:55:23 [csarven]
- Generally, one reviews, then assesses
- 15:55:34 [bjdmeest]
- shepazu: I don't think it's worth delaying this
- 15:55:53 [bjdmeest]
- ... instead, we go ahead, I don't see a change in the outcome
- 15:56:48 [bjdmeest]
- RESOLUTION: Rename "reviewing" to "assessing" and broaden the description
- 15:57:25 [bjdmeest]
- azaroth: I will create the issue and describe the resolution
- 15:57:56 [bjdmeest]
- TimCole: we still have the HTML serialization as an editor-action
- 15:58:11 [bjdmeest]
- ivan: we will have to look at the postponed at some time
- 15:58:24 [bjdmeest]
- ... the HTML note is not for version 2, it is something we intend to do
- 15:58:41 [bjdmeest]
- shepazu: I think it is correct to be an editor-action
- 15:59:26 [ivan]
- Topic: Testing
- 15:59:34 [fjh]
- Present+ Frederick_Hirsch
- 15:59:38 [bjdmeest]
- ShaneM: infrastructure is in place
- 16:00:04 [bjdmeest]
- ... I'm going to work with the WPT to get the base infrastructure into the WPT
- 16:00:19 [bjdmeest]
- ... once that's done, we'll start rolling tests in
- 16:00:20 [shepazu]
- q+
- 16:00:33 [TimCole]
- ack shep
- 16:01:23 [bjdmeest]
- shepazu: so, you are still committed to do the testing framework, help with the initial tests, and then step away?
- 16:01:46 [bjdmeest]
- ShaneM: I won't be stepping away, but I don't plan to actually author test, I'll show up whenever you want
- 16:02:48 [ivan]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 16:02:48 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/27-annotation-minutes.html ivan
- 16:02:57 [ivan]
- trackbot, end telcon
- 16:02:57 [trackbot]
- Zakim, list attendees
- 16:02:57 [Zakim]
- As of this point the attendees have been Rob_Sanderson, Tim_Cole, ShaneM_, Takeshi_Kanai, Randall_Leeds, Ivan, Benjamin_Young, Ben_De_Meester, Doug, Paolo, Paolo_Ciccarese,
- 16:03:00 [Zakim]
- ... Dan_Whaley, csarven, Frederick_Hirsch
- 16:03:05 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes
- 16:03:05 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/27-annotation-minutes.html trackbot
- 16:03:06 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, bye
- 16:03:06 [RRSAgent]
- I see no action items