Meeting minutes
Draft response to I18N issue 145 https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/145
John: We discussed multip[le values, and their seperators
… and an issue regarding conjugated terms, where a 'plus' and a 'space' are involved
Lisa: There was a discussion of the HTML reference. Issue 145.
Becky the case: a symbol, a conjugated symbol, then another symbol [symbol symbol + SPACE symbol]
JF: By listing multiple numeric values it returns a phrase
… this spacing can throw off the system
janina: hard space vs soft space?
LisaSeemanKest: We said language and directional metadata should be the default of how you parse.
<CharlesL> The above discussion is referring to Agenda 3 token lists
LisaSeemanKest: say a plus sign means conjugation (you +male, you +female)
… we are not testing translation across languages
<JF> https://
JF: Example 12, <span data-symbol="13621 12324 17511">cup of Tea</span>
… The / + / is used to join the conjugated values, "her" (14707) and "name" (15691).
… <img src="her-name.png" alt="שמה" data-symbol="15691 + 14707"/>
CharlesL: All of this is in reference to Agenda item #3
JF: The space around the joiner is the cause of the problem, before and after the +
<JF> 15691 + 14707 versus 15691+14707
<LisaSeemanKest> +1
JF: The 2nd part of the question is, 'use the host language convention' but in HTML we have both space separated and comma separated
janina: We looked at ARIA to follow its lead
becky: +1 for removing the space
… (noting that parsers can handle spaces around symbols)
… ARIA references a token list and 'follow the language' with retaining the ambiguity over HTML 5
JF: Which choice do we take? (1) space (2) comma (3) ambiguous
janina: Suggest we check in with ARIA, as they have dealt with this ambiguity.
CharlesL: ARIA is 'out of the box' and published, they have to live with whatever they've got
… this is a newer specification, we can specify conjugation (without space) and go with it
JF: Should we ask TAG, WHAT-WG? Present the use case/scenario and the three choices, and get an opinion on what is the best notation.
janina: OK to go to TAG/WG
becky: Going to WHAT-WG sounds good
<JF> +1 Becky
janina: we want to avoid parser conflicts
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to propose writing up a draft question for TAG and WHAT WG
janina: send to main APA list
<JF> +1 to Janina - keeping our friends close
JF: I will write up a draft and send it to the personalization list, if everyone approves on the list then JF will send it
LisaSeemanKest: The order might be important. First APA, then WHATWG then TAG
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask ARIA why they chose what they chose?
janina: Big benefits from being 100% aligned with ARIA, as browsers and AT will need to parse both
JF: That's why it's worth asking why they landed on option (3)
janina: And ask, what is their experience being ambiguous on choice (3)
Sharon: taking up agenda item 4
Clean up IRC action items https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/task-forces/personalization/track/actions/open
<LisaSeemanKest> https://
<LisaSeemanKest> I think u should just close it
Sharon: Seeking best way to tidy up
JF: Tidied up during the call.
LisaSeemanKest: I will close the 'prefix' as we are staying with data dash for now
… 68
Draft response to I18N issue 145 https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/145
Review Action items wiki - https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/actions
Sharon: Lisa to draft Editors note about data- changing. Lets take a look
LisaSeemanKest: These editor's notes need to be reviewed
Sharon: I see an issue as closed on 26-Jan
New business?
LisaSeemanKest: Module 1 should point to the public explainer, not to the wiki. Currently pointing to wiki
<Roy> https://
<becky> https://
LisaSeemanKest: Look inside, lower down -- multiple references need to be validated that they are pointing to the right place
Issue 160, spoke with R
becky: Remains open, as it is tagged with Module 2/3
CharlesL: The wiki explainer-- should we put a new title on it, a sign that "This is old" ? Or rename it TAG explainer
LisaSeemanKest: The front page of the wiki has a reasonably updated list -- let's add to that
CharlesL: https://
janina: I strongly advocate that the TAG "own" this situation
… "created for W3C TAG consumption"
… we need a general explainer, and at the same time, need to produce a very specific type of defined explainer.
… TAG demands we leave a lot of stuff out
<JF> Last minute FYI: related to this TF: https://
Sharon: Need a new time for the planning call/
janina: a new recruit will join -- Matthew Atkinson from APA
np Charles, thanks for your patience