[02:24] yod: agenda at http://esw.w3.org/topic/QaDev [02:24] bjoern_: latest mails at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Publ\u200bic/public-qa-dev/2005Mar/ [02:25] yod: I'll start with some news from the Tech Plenary last week [02:25] yod: - met CSS and HTML WGs - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Publ\u200bic/public-qa-dev/2005Mar/0004.html\u200b [02:26] yod: - CSS validator and CSS2.1 : plh apparently ready to code up CSS2.1 support for us [02:26] yod: (this is very good news) [02:27] yod: I will followup on these contacts/progress this week, also based on our discussions [02:31] yod: nice, polite meet and greet, without aggressively going into issues, since it was first time I went to these groups' face-to-face meeting [02:31] yod: (and invited myself, as opposed to being invited) [02:33] yod: possible followup somehow related to xover's AI to draft "how-to-work-with-w3c-wgs" [02:35] yod: thoughts on this start of "liaison" process? [02:38] yod: We had an agenda on CSS validator and 2.1, too [02:39] yod: implementation in itself seems sorted out, we have a few details to decide, however [02:39] yod: "Change the default version to CSS 2.1 once we support it? Or should we keep the default and use CSS21 as default in LogValidator?" [02:39] yod: (insert rant on lack of versioning in CSS here) [02:39] bjoern_: :-) [02:40] yod: I think the default should remain 2 as long as 2.1 is not a REC [02:40] bjoern_: and once it is a rec? [02:40] yod: make it default [02:40] bjoern_: sounds good [02:42] yod: I am not sure about the LogValidator and WebService::Validator::CSS::W3C [02:42] bjoern_: W::V::C::W defaults to the CSS Validator's default. [02:43] yod: sees the profile parameter in W::V::C::W [02:43] yod: so I could change the default in logvalidator [02:43] yod: but I probably won't [02:44] yod: if people are unhappy with (automatic) validation results, I will gladly forward complaints to the relevant WG... [02:47] yod: let's move on to accesskeys before moving to m12n (I sent a couple mails on the topic, but regrettably late, you may want to give them a glance) [02:47] scop: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Publi\u200bc/public-qa-dev/2005Feb/0030.html [02:48] bjoern_: I'm fine with yod's suggestions. [02:48] scop: ditto [02:48] yod: the main point of the proposed changes would be that the access keys would not provide access to form control any more, only navigation [02:49] scop: ok, and sync validator and link checker [02:50] scop: one tiny change, I think it'd be better to use 1, 2, 3, ... rather than 0, 1, 2, 3, ... [02:50] yod: looks at keyboard, agrees [02:51] scop: the problem with the accesskeys was mostly reported against the link checker, so it'll need more changes than wmvs [02:51] yod: ACTION: olivier to followup to accesskey thread, propose key mapping [02:51] scop: which already uses numbers for most stuff [02:51] scop: (IIRC) [02:52] scop: after this has been resolved, I'll be pushing a new wlc out (contains this + redirect-to-localhost fix) [02:55] yod: small digression on wlc: I received a few more reports of "empty screen" annoyance (via sysreq and site-comments I think). thinking a web-to-mail interface would solve the issue in some of these cases [02:56] yod: but probably not for the near future :/ [02:56] yod: what do you think, scop? [02:58] scop: yeah, I really don't have any ideas how to implement everything with plain HTTP [02:58] scop: "plain" as in "as currently implemented" [02:59] scop: web-to-mail could work, ditto for some kind of short-term persistence where people could surf to an URL and be told whether their link check job has finished [03:00] yod: yes, queuing++ [03:00] yod: I actually like that idea better [03:01] yod: if I decided to give it a shot with current architecture, do you think it would be a "bad idea"? [03:01] yod: as in, not worthy given that we want to move toward m12n? [03:01] scop: not necessarily [03:02] scop: something that could be relatively easy would be to have wlc flush its output to a file in a publicly available dir somewhere [03:02] scop: alas, that can't be markup [03:03] yod: unless wlc was made to write chunks of result before [03:03] yod: that's hackish... [03:04] scop: well, the current output is not much more than "flush the plaintext, when done add html headers/footers and wrap plain text in 
"
[03:04] scop: (as an end result, that is)
[03:05] yod: right
[03:05] scop: but dunno, this is off-the-cuff, I haven't thought about it at all before this
[03:06] yod: I have given it very little though too, basically thinking out loud here as you're around
[03:06] scop: ok. if you think it would be feasible to try out something with the current impl, go right ahead
[03:07] yod: good
[03:07] yod: I think I'll give it a bit more thought, and propose to the list before that in any case
[03:07] yod: but if I manage to get a couple of quiet days to try and work on it, I will
[03:08] scop: good. I cannot promise to be available to help much with that, but should be available for comments
[03:18] scop: re: semi-offline link check: perhaps an auto-refreshing response page would be worth investigating
[03:19] scop: along with the $short_term_storage -> when done, auto-refresh ends
[03:19] yod: scop: yes, there are a few such solutions, e.g server push
[03:19] yod: not too fond of these, but that's worth investigating anyway
[03:19] scop: agrees
[03:20] yod: ACTION: olivier to list potential UI solutions for wlc's "blank screen" issues before next meeting



[03:10] yod: shall we discuss m12n? scop not being up to date on topic (neither was I until this week, so no shame in that ;) and xover not present...
[03:11] bjoern_: Sounds like we should discuss on the list?
[03:11] yod: I think
[03:11] bjoern_: fine with me
[03:12] bjoern_: I'll followup on your mails then


[03:13] yod: any other topic, anything I forgot?
[03:13] yod: hmm, I forgot port restriction
[03:14] bjoern_: I think we had consensus to have no restrictions...
[03:14] yod: ACTION: olivier to implement removal of port restriction in CSS validator
[03:14] bjoern_: but this should be noted somewhere
[03:14] yod: yes
[03:14] yod: at least I don't recall anyone asking to keep it
[03:15] yod: the question was left pending because I wasn't sure about nuking the particular code
[03:15] bjoern_: I'd suggest adding a ACTION: xover to note no port restrictions in the style guide
[03:15] bjoern_: (since xover has the style guide ai already...)
[03:15] yod: fails to see link with style guide
[03:16] yod: unless the guide has a much wider scope than I was assuming
[03:16] bjoern_: Well, there is no better place atm...
[03:17] yod: fair enough
[03:17] bjoern_: Seems to fit under a "Design Guidelines" heading to me...


Next meeting in *3* weeks, 29 March.