W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-personalization-tf@w3.org > February 2020

Re: Personalization Task Force meeting minutes

From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 19:23:13 -0500
To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Cc: Steve Lee <stevelee@w3.org>, public-personalization-tf <public-personalization-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20200206002313.GX2274@rednote.net>
OK. This is giving me a better perspective.

I think we're all in agreement we're shooting for the starts, and not
just for the moon.

My thinking is that asking for a raft of data attributes is more likely
to fail. The more attributes we ask for, the more likely to fail.

I could be wrong, but that's why I'm saying prefix.

We can hash this out, and we can check with our friends in TAG and
elsewhere on this question.

Best,

Janina

John Foliot writes:
> Janina wrote:
> 
> > the suggestion was to ask them to provide the permanent prefix.
> 
> ...which to me feels like we've already given up on striving for
> non-prefixed attributes. From my perspective, I'd rather go to them with a
> complete collection of data-* attributes, implementation experience(s), and
> a request to make them ALL prefix free at that time. Then, when they come
> back with a two-list response, (we can do these, but not these) that's when
> we then ask them to recommend a new, permanent prefix. I assert that asking
> them now for a "permanent" prefix limits our options down the road, is all.
> (I can also point to ARIA, where @role was accepted prefix free, but other
> attributes were not)
> 
> Shooting for the stars will get you perhaps to the moon, and the idealist
> in me hopes that all of our new attributes will get accepted prefix free
> (and the pragmatist in me accepts that won't likely happen, although I
> remain at heart a star-gazer...).
> 
> JF
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 10:44 AM Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
> 
> > We hear you, John. I suspect not all of us agree with you, but we
> > certainly hear you.
> >
> > BTW: Who suggested NOT keeping our friends in the loop? I believe the
> > suggestion was to ask them to provide the permanent prefix.
> >
> > John Foliot writes:
> > > Given we're barely at FPWD, and with 2 more  modules that are even less
> > > mature, I'm not that concerned. With enough implementation evidence, we
> > may
> > > get to final CR with **no prefix at all**, at least for some of our
> > > proposed attributes.
> > >
> > > This is a well-worn path at the W3C already - we need to only look at how
> > > CSS advanced features: they used 'browser-flags' as shown in this code
> > > sample:
> > >
> > > -webkit-transition: -webkit-transform .3s ease-in-out;
> > >    -moz-transition:    -moz-transform .3s ease-in-out;
> > >     -ms-transition:     -ms-transform .3s ease-in-out;
> > >      -o-transition:      -o-transform .3s ease-in-out;
> > >         transition:         transform .3s ease-in-out;
> > >
> > > (And, I keep coming back to the fact that TAG also recommended using
> > data-*
> > > after our presentation at TPAC 2018, and at some point we need to keep
> > our
> > > friends on board as well)
> > >
> > >  So, respectfully, I don't think this is a huge concern at this time.
> > Let's
> > > get what we have out now, get it socialized and get some implementation
> > > examples and experience, and go from there.
> > >
> > > I understand the sense of urgency from the COGA WG perspective, but as my
> > > grandmother used to say, "less haste, more speed". I'll further suggest
> > > revisiting "prefixes" at this time is a distraction - we went there, and
> > > decided on data-* during those deliberations. Let's move forward and not
> > > revisit old discussions.
> > >
> > > JF
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 6:32 AM Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > OK, quick response ...
> > > >
> > > > Without a replacement for data- this spec can go no further than CR.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > Janina
> > > >
> > > > Steve Lee writes:
> > > > > On 03/02/2020 18:27, John Foliot wrote:
> > > > > > I am unconvinced that deciding on a prefix at this time is that
> > > > critical.
> > > > >
> > > > > That is my opinion too.
> > > > >
> > > > > It feels like an implementation detail level distraction.
> > > > >
> > > > > There way be other aspects I'm missing but if we are concerned about
> > the
> > > > > impact on community users at this early stage I think anyone trying
> > out
> > > > an
> > > > > implementation or trial will be aware it is experimental and so
> > likely to
> > > > > change. We can always be sure to give clear messaging
> > > > >
> > > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Janina Sajka
> > > >
> > > > Linux Foundation Fellow
> > > > Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:       http://a11y.org
> > > >
> > > > The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> > > > Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures
> > http://www.w3.org/wai/apa
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *​John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC
> > Representative
> > > Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
> > > deque.com
> >
> > --
> >
> > Janina Sajka
> >
> > Linux Foundation Fellow
> > Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:       http://a11y.org
> >
> > The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> > Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures        http://www.w3.org/wai/apa
> >
> >
> 
> -- 
> *​John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC Representative
> Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
> deque.com

-- 

Janina Sajka

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures	http://www.w3.org/wai/apa
Received on Thursday, 6 February 2020 00:23:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 6 February 2020 00:23:19 UTC