See also: IRC log
<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007May/0023
<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007May/0025
<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007May/0026^
<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007May/0020
SAZ: several staff moving around we should look
at
... mobileOK, mainly two thinks to review: potential accessibility issues and
compatibility with EARL
JK: 2.3.3 could be a test itself
<scribe> ACTION: everybody to review by next week and send possible ERT WG relevant issues to the list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/30-er-minutes.html#action01]
SAZ: POWDER use cases and requirementes
directly published as a note
... overlap with our work
<scribe> ACTION: everybody to review the POWDER note and comment any thought with the rest of the group [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/30-er-minutes.html#action02]
RR: any background on POWDER
?
SAZ: basically metadata to label resources from
different perspectives: offensive content, mobile friendly, accesible,
etc.
... several groups would like to use FOAF
... doubts about persistence
... it looks like FOAF guys are now moving in the direction we need
... need to be sure about FOAF before CR
<scribe> ACTION: everybody to look at FOAF and see in what direction are they moving [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/30-er-minutes.html#action03]
<scribe> ACTION: start to look at the EARL guide and help synchronize with the schema [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/30-er-minutes.html#action04]
SAZ: contributions to any section are welcome
RR: could write drafts of some of them
SAZ: be sure to coordinate with CV
... also a new WCAG2 WD online we should review at some point
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/issues
<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007May/0027
SAZ: proposal to allow extensibility of outcome values
CI: several concerns about allowing "free" extensibility
[discussion]
SAZ: better to continue the discussion on the list
RR: agree with CI
JK: need to talk about it
SAZ: move to #12
... proposal to accept the comment
RESOLUTION: proposal accepted
SAZ: move to #13
... proposal to accept the issue and revise all the terms
RESOLUTION: proposal accepted
SAZ: now #14
... also editorial, proposal to accept it
RESOLUTION: proposal accepted
SAZ: #21
... outside of the scope
... maybe later in the WG
RESOLUTION: reject the proposal
SAZ: is something that will probably be done
anyway but outside of EARL scope
... #22
... again out of scope, more related with test descriptions and
"evidences"
... proposal to reject
RESOLUTION: reject the proposal
SAZ: #29
... several efforts before but need to clarify more
... proposal to accept the suggestion
RESOLUTION: proposal accepted
SAZ: #7
... an interesting one, something to look at in next telecons
... JK's turn
<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007May/0019.html
JK: topic: timestamps in request and
response
... discussed before about the proper properties, about it's something that
should be at HTTP in RDF and about what time to choose (client, server, any
proxy...)
CI: timestamps are nowhere in the HTTP
specification
... even if they are useful, they are not part of HTTP
SAZ: we are already recording things outside
the HTTP specification, e.g. Connection class
... the question is if it's important enough
... the simpler approach is a dc:date when the request is initiated
... use case, the crawler and the evaluation are sepparated process
... several WCAG 2 test are "time-dependant"
JK: maybe have a look at what properties could be feasible and make a recommendation
RR: dc:date is the most obvious one
<scribe> ACTION: JK to make an specific proposal on timestamping [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/30-er-minutes.html#action05]
<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007May/0024.html
SAZ: have a look at the open threads on the list
RR: background?
JK: we got some comments on the last drafts about complexity of the structure