Editing WG

[wseltzer]

w3c/webappswg#42

Advance notice sent: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2021Feb/0006.html

Draft charter: https://w3c.github.io/editing/charter-drafts/editing-2021.html

[wseltzer]

Advance notice sent: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2021Feb/0006.html

Draft charter: https://w3c.github.io/editing/charter-drafts/editing-2021.html

[siusin]

New charter proposal, reviewers please take note.

Charter Review

[Editing Working Group Charter:] https://w3c.github.io/editing/charter-drafts/editing-2021.html

What kind of charter is this? Check the relevant box / remove irrelevant branches.

• New

• New WG

Horizontal Reviews: apply the Github label "Horizontal review requested" to request reviews for accessibility (a11y), internationalization (i18n), privacy, and security. Also add a "card" for this issue to the Strategy Funnel.

Where would charter proponents like to see issues raised?
Please open an issue in the w3c/editing repo.

Thank you!

[samuelweiler]

I see lots of unfixed "todo" items in the charter, yet this draft misses some of the changes that are in the current template including the line re: security and privacy sections (and a different odd line mentioning privacy). I'm not sure what else might be missing. Your choice of whether to backport the change(s) or restart from the current template.

There is also some formatting cleanup to be done in the deliverables list.

Please tag me here when the security and privacy line(s) are fixed.

[michael-n-cooper]

APA WG wants a liaison statement, as editing has many accessibility considerations yet to be addressed. Proposed description: "Explore accessibility use cases and gap analysis and ensure new specifications provide needed accessibility features."

[michael-n-cooper]

APA review complete, over to @brewerj to complete accessibility horizontal review.

[siusin]

I see lots of unfixed "todo" items in the charter, yet this draft misses some of the changes that are in the current template including the line re: security and privacy sections (and a different odd line mentioning privacy). I'm not sure what else might be missing. Your choice of whether to backport the change(s) or restart from the current template.

There is also some formatting cleanup to be done in the deliverables list.

Please tag me here when the security and privacy line(s) are fixed.

Thanks Sam. The todo items should be fixed by PR#284.

[samuelweiler]

I see lots of unfixed "todo" items in the charter, yet this draft misses some of the changes that are in the current template including the line re: security and privacy sections (and a different odd line mentioning privacy). I'm not sure what else might be missing. Your choice of whether to backport the change(s) or restart from the current template.
There is also some formatting cleanup to be done in the deliverables list.
Please tag me here when the security and privacy line(s) are fixed.

Thanks Sam. The todo items should be fixed by PR#284.

todo items look pretty good; the security and privacy text still does not match the template.

[travisleithead]

I'd like to tighten the scope section so that it is focused on web scenarios, not editing scenarios of all kinds and flavors. Instead of:

The scope of Editing WG covers all aspects of text editing, which may include:

I'd like to propose:

The scope of Editing WG covers all aspects of text editing on the web, which may include:

[himorin]

From i18n WG, we also would like to request to be listed in 4.1 coordination section, that there could be many considerations on internationalization point of view to be addressed in editing especially for edit/input, keyboard, etc.

[siusin]

Thanks for the review comments. We've updated the draft charter in #286 and #287.

Latest version:
https://w3c.github.io/editing/charter-drafts/editing-2021.html

[brewerj]

Hi @siusin Thank you for adding the liaison sentence that Michael Cooper requested.

Additionally, given that editing is a form of authoring, a reference to the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 would be relevant. I would not expect this to be a full dependency nor the Editing WG deliverables to necessarily go into depth on accessibility aspects of authoring, but think that the WG should be aware of ATAG 2.0, and consider sections to point and/or incorporate where appropriate.

Thanks, and please let me know if you have questions.

[siusin]

Thanks @brewerj !

Is this a request to the specs or to the charter? It seems the ATAG WG has already been closed.

[brewerj]

@siusin It is a request to reference the ATAG 2.0 Recommendation that I provided a link to in my comment above.

The scope of the former ATAG WG has in part been carried into the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group, but the relevant bit for your charter is what I named and linked to above. Please let me if you have further questions; thanks.

[plehegar]

We could add, in section 4.1:
[[
Accessibility Guidelines Working Group
The Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AG WG) maintains the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0, which provides guidelines for how authoring tools and environments can support accessibility for authors with disabilities, as well as promoting production of accessible content by all authors.
]]

It doesn't add a requirement but do add a reminder of the work.

[brewerj]

@plehegar thanks for the discussion on how to add in a relevant reference to ATAG here. I think that a dependency with AG WG in this case makes sense, and a discussion with the Editing WG at some point in the first few months of their work @michael-n-cooper I can help with that discussion, and we can potentially bring in one or two other people on that discussion as well. @siusin please let us know if you have questions. Thanks!

[siusin]

@brewerj AG WG is now listed in section 4.1 and the co-chairs are aware that the AG WG would like to have a joint meeting in the next few months if we are able to create the group. Thanks for the comments :)

[samuelweiler]

I think this was closed in error.

[samuelweiler]

Thank you for updating the security and privacy text to match the template. There is still a dangling mention of privacy that doesn't match the template. Why the divergence from the template?

Each specification should contain a section on accessibility, privacy, internationalization that describe the benefits and impacts, including ways specification features can be used to address them, and recommendations for maximizing aforementioned topics in implementations.

I'm used to seeing the list of deliverables in charters include a brief summary of each document, e.g. stolen from the doc's abstract. I particularly note the lack of that in the "Other Deliverables" section, where we don't have links to the documents.

I'm also aware that our charters are too wordy to begin with. Up to you whether to fix that for the existing deliverables, but I do think more words are needed for the "other deliverables", unless you have links available for not-yet-adopted proposed docs. (This issue filed as w3c/editing#294)

(A minor issue filed as w3c/editing#293)

Security review complete. Flagging privacy until the divergence from the template is explained.

[dontcallmedom]

Group created https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2021Jun/0007.html