IRC log of er on 2006-04-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:53:27 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #er

13:53:27 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/04/26-er-irc

13:53:31 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #er

13:53:38 [shadi]

zakim, this will be ert

13:53:38 [Zakim]

ok, shadi; I see WAI_ERTWG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes

13:54:18 [shadi]

agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2006Apr/0016.html

13:54:22 [shadi]

chair: Shadi

13:54:28 [shadi]

meeting: ERT WG

13:54:40 [shadi]

agenda+ EARL pointers proposal by Jim

13:54:50 [shadi]

agenda+ Explicit vs blanket assertions

13:55:01 [shadi]

agenda+ URI-in-RDF vs single URI by CarlosV

13:55:10 [shadi]

agenda+ WCAG 2.0 Last Call

13:57:09 [Zakim]

WAI_ERTWG()10:00AM has now started

13:57:11 [Zakim]

+Shadi

13:57:35 [ChrisR]

ChrisR has joined #er

13:58:46 [CarlosI]

CarlosI has joined #er

14:00:44 [niq]

niq has joined #er

14:02:05 [Zakim]

+CarlosI

14:02:30 [Zakim]

+Klaus/Johannes/Thomas

14:02:46 [Zakim]

+[IPcaller]

14:02:53 [JohannesK]

JohannesK has joined #er

14:03:09 [shadi]

zakim, ipcaller is Nick

14:03:10 [Zakim]

+Nick; got it

14:04:49 [shadi]

zakim, who is making noise?

14:05:00 [Zakim]

shadi, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Klaus/Johannes/Thomas (14%), Nick (46%)

14:05:12 [niq]

Zakim: who is here?

14:05:26 [niq]

bah

14:05:58 [carlos]

carlos has joined #er

14:07:39 [JibberJim]

JibberJim has joined #er

14:08:19 [Zakim]

-Klaus/Johannes/Thomas

14:09:02 [Zakim]

+Klaus/Johannes/Thomas

14:10:14 [JohannesK]

can you read me?

14:10:17 [JohannesK]

:-)

14:10:22 [niq]

hehehe

14:10:42 [shadi]

jim, are you joining?

14:11:01 [Zakim]

+[IPcaller]

14:11:12 [shadi]

zakim, ipcaller is Chris

14:11:13 [Zakim]

+Chris; got it

14:11:46 [Zakim]

+Jim_Ley

14:12:15 [shadi]

zakim, take up agendum 1

14:12:15 [Zakim]

agendum 1. "EARL pointers proposal by Jim" taken up [from shadi]

14:12:44 [JibberJim]

sure

14:12:47 [drooks]

drooks has joined #er

14:13:07 [shadi]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2006Mar/0003

14:13:18 [shadi]

http://www.w3.org/2006/04/05-er-minutes#item02

14:13:28 [shadi]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2006Apr/0018.html

14:14:44 [ChrisR]

SAZ: summary of issue - byte offset or char offset

14:15:06 [ChrisR]

JK: has 2 issues...

14:15:26 [ChrisR]

1) byte offset

14:15:42 [Zakim]

+??P14

14:16:11 [ChrisR]

JK: 2) problem with unicode

14:16:44 [shadi]

zakim, ??p14 is really David

14:16:44 [Zakim]

+David; got it

14:16:56 [ChrisR]

JL: agrees with JK, need both

14:16:58 [niq]

char offsets fall down if there's an encoding error in a text source. Need byte offsets to be allowed.

14:18:09 [ChrisR]

NIQ: yep, need both types of offsets

14:19:45 [niq]

text text [badbytes] more text *

14:20:03 [niq]

the number of chars in [badbytes] is undefined.

14:20:17 [niq]

so the char offset of * is not well-defined

14:20:29 [niq]

but the byte offset of * works just fine

14:21:56 [JibberJim]

I think Johannes could be able to do and proably should. but it doesn't hurt EARL Pointers to have both

14:22:14 [Zakim]

-David

14:23:11 [Zakim]

+[IPcaller]

14:23:39 [shadi]

zakim, ipcaller is David

14:23:39 [Zakim]

+David; got it

14:23:58 [ChrisR]

NIQ: problem can occur with text encoding errors or if any bytes are unencoded, this is real world problem

14:25:18 [Zakim]

-David

14:26:07 [ChrisR]

SAZ: suggests that scheme could be developed for snippets or bytes/chars, example binary files such as images or audio files

14:26:08 [Zakim]

-Nick

14:27:13 [Zakim]

+[IPcaller]

14:27:22 [ChrisR]

JL: currently don't have anything to point to binary files, should be developed

14:27:50 [niq]

niq has joined #er

14:28:01 [drooks]

zakim, ipcaller is drooks

14:28:01 [Zakim]

+drooks; got it

14:29:25 [ChrisR]

(general agreement that both byte and char offset needed but more discussion needed)

14:29:41 [ChrisR]

action: JL will review with feedback

14:29:49 [shadi]

action: jim to refine current snippets proposal

14:29:53 [Zakim]

+[IPcaller]

14:30:02 [shadi]

rrsagent, drop action 1

14:31:26 [shadi]

zakim, close agendum 1

14:31:26 [Zakim]

agendum 1, EARL pointers proposal by Jim, closed

14:31:27 [Zakim]

I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is

14:31:28 [Zakim]

2. Explicit vs blanket assertions [from shadi]

14:31:36 [shadi]

zakim, take up agendum 2

14:31:36 [Zakim]

agendum 2. "Explicit vs blanket assertions" taken up [from shadi]

14:31:59 [shadi]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2006Apr/0010

14:32:23 [JibberJim]

SAZ: Last call, we had proposal from Carlos for groups of webcontent

14:32:34 [shadi]

http://www.w3.org/2006/04/19-er-minutes#item02

14:33:00 [JibberJim]

SAZ: Do we want blanket states by earl and use wildcards rather than specifying all

14:33:28 [JibberJim]

SAZ: Could be verbose if you list all, but it's very accurate

14:34:34 [JibberJim]

SAZ: Alternatively it allows us to make general statements about entire sites, related to the Content Labelling Group

14:35:19 [Zakim]

-drooks

14:35:28 [JibberJim]

q+

14:35:38 [shadi]

ack JibberJim

14:37:00 [Zakim]

+??P2

14:38:35 [shadi]

zakim, ??p2 is really David

14:38:35 [Zakim]

+David; got it

14:39:38 [JibberJim]

JL: Wildcards don't give us any more expressability, as we can extend EARL to have a new TestSUbject that covers are groups and can be expressed as we want.

14:40:12 [JibberJim]

JL: Wildcards are more complicated and make things harder for people

14:40:13 [drooks]

sorry but my skype is really playing up. will have to continue via irc

14:40:28 [Zakim]

-David

14:40:39 [niq]

skype--

14:41:02 [JibberJim]

SAZ: Would you say that EARL is a general reporting language for making statements exactly what is tested, rather than for making blanket statements?

14:41:14 [JibberJim]

JL: Yes.

14:41:33 [JibberJim]

SAZ: Nick we can't hear you!

14:42:36 [JibberJim]

JK: I like the idea of having specifically for reporting results of tests and what I tested is the resource, and some more resources etc. saying exactly what I tested

14:43:09 [JibberJim]

SAZ: Is Verbosity a problem for your tools?

14:43:12 [Zakim]

-[IPcaller]

14:43:47 [JibberJim]

JK: Not everything is necessary to be recorded every time, only if necessary, so a report doesn't need to be huge

14:44:16 [JibberJim]

CR: I don't think we should allow blanket statements without refering back to something

14:45:06 [JibberJim]

SAZ: Are we saying the blanket statement is not a role for EARL?

14:45:33 [niq]

niq has joined #er

14:45:59 [JibberJim]

CR: blanket statements could still be made, but you need to refer back to something

14:46:40 [Zakim]

+[IPcaller]

14:46:51 [JibberJim]

CR: You could say "this site passes" in EARL

14:47:05 [JibberJim]

SAZ: But you need to extend EARL currently to make statements about entire sites

14:48:12 [JibberJim]

JK: If you make a statement about a list of pages, then you've not made a statement about the whole site

14:48:35 [JibberJim]

CR: Could you not say that "these are all the pages that make up the site"

14:48:42 [JibberJim]

JK: Not with the EARL Vocabulary

14:48:59 [JibberJim]

JK: There is hasPart etc.

14:49:40 [niq]

we already have multi-level testsubject

14:50:02 [niq]

e.g page/snippet

14:50:14 [niq]

whole site is just another level

14:50:24 [CarlosI]

agrees

14:51:23 [JibberJim]

CI: We all have different ideas of what a report is and different use cases

14:52:04 [JibberJim]

CI: lots of users just care about different groups, e.g. site, rather than individual pages

14:52:16 [JibberJim]

CI: So if we want a complete report language, we need to cover that

14:53:17 [JibberJim]

SAZ: Do we need to be able to say site X is valid and points to an EARL report, does EARL have to be able to fulfil both

14:53:34 [Zakim]

-[IPcaller]

14:53:51 [JibberJim]

CI: We should give our requirements to the Content Labelling group if we don't do it

14:54:02 [Zakim]

-Jim_Ley

14:54:20 [JibberJim]

grr!

14:55:11 [ChrisR]

SAZ: proposal: Seperate conformance claim from groups of pages.

14:55:39 [ChrisR]

SAZ: can be done in RDF but may not be easy to parse

14:56:13 [ChrisR]

SAZ: need to describe groups of pages (regular expressions for domain names) sort of thing

14:58:19 [ChrisR]

SAZ: using EARL for blanket statements does not seem to have much support in group

15:03:16 [Zakim]

-Klaus/Johannes/Thomas

15:03:18 [Zakim]

-Shadi

15:03:19 [Zakim]

-Chris

15:03:19 [ChrisR]

ChrisR has left #er

15:03:27 [Zakim]

-CarlosI

15:03:29 [Zakim]

WAI_ERTWG()10:00AM has ended

15:03:30 [Zakim]

Attendees were Shadi, CarlosI, Klaus/Johannes/Thomas, Nick, Chris, Jim_Ley, David, drooks, [IPcaller]

15:03:41 [shadi]

zakim, bye

15:03:41 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #er

15:03:50 [shadi]

rrsagent, make logs world

15:03:51 [drooks]

drooks has left #er

15:03:59 [shadi]

rrsagent, make minutes

15:03:59 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/04/26-er-minutes.html shadi

15:04:09 [shadi]

rrsagent, make logs world

15:04:18 [shadi]

rrsagent, bye

15:04:18 [RRSAgent]

I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/26-er-actions.rdf :

15:04:18 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: jim to refine current snippets proposal [2]

15:04:18 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/26-er-irc#T14-29-49