<joanie> agenda: this
<joanie> agenda: be done
<joanie> agenda order 1 2 3 4 6 5 7 8
<janina> scribe: janina
jd: aria, dpub-aria, dpub-aam all
going to rec
... Believe apg advancing to note
... Pub will be 14 December
... core-aam is next agendum
<joanie> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria-admin/2017Dec/0000.html (closes 8 December)
jd: Notes this closes Friday. Please review!
<joanie> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2017Nov/0017.html (22 November)
jd: e-champaigne all around!
<MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC
<joanie> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2017Dec/0000.html
jd: everyone should read the above message sent to the list
we have an unintended dependency on AccName from Core-AAM
it was an oversight, there was wording to ¨see also¨ in AccName but it was done in normative language
Director noticed during transition review, after AC review closed
initially told us we needed to go back to CR for that spec
but I looked and observed there´s no new information, no new tests
yet going back to CR could have a triggered a new 60-day patent exclusion opportunity
<joanie> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2017Dec/0080.html
which is process hold-up without much value
I was able to get agreement that the patent exclusion window wouldn´t be required
but then did further explanation of what happened
and made plan that we will send message to AC members who voted on the spec
asking them if the proposed change would change their review comments
the changes are detailed in the pull request https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/679
we gave them until 12:00 pm Boston time on Wednesday 13 December 2017 to respond
we don´t expect objections (fingers crossed), in which case we should be able to go to Rec
jg: does AC rep need to do anything?
jd: if there are no concerns, no reply required
nobody is allowed to drink Champagne or other celebratory drinks until after this clears next week
jd: discussed under first agendum above
<joanie> https://w3c.github.io/aria/
<janina> scribe: janina
jd: Note this is our ARIA-1.2
Editors Draft
... Also worked on insuring nonpertinent error msgs not
exposted to AT
... Also, we now have automated snapshots
mk: So, can work on validation
errors in apg!
... aria-extended on menu items is blocking html
validation
... Would like to remove the "ignore" notes, but what to
do?
... Plan A will be to get clear with publication request
... Please help me compose the explanation
... So, do we need a Plan B?
mc: This is one reason I want to send the pub request tomorrow, if possible, but no later than Monday
mk: Believe we've always had issues related to new ARIA features
jn: Yes
... Asks whether validation checks subdirs where the examples
are
mc: No, so no issue
jd: So, is APG good to go? About to be good to go?
mk: Yes
<joanie> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/681
jd: should probably have made it
a numbered list ...
... we support expanded on everything
... Need for authoring to review: yes/no
... MK, can you take the action?
mk: yes
<bgaraventa1979> +q
<joanie> Need to sanity check roles which support aria-expanded
mk: I'll pull together our discussion
bg: Wondering about tab panel which isn't exposed if not expanded
mk: Good item for
discussion
... Birker asked about checkbox use case
<jongund> JB: I can scibe
<scribe> scribe: janina
<joanie> https://github.com/w3c/aria/projects
jd: Looking at borrowing this
approach from apg ...
... Looking whether this approach might work
<joanie> https://github.com/w3c/aria/projects/2
[joanie explaining the work flow]
mk: Notes need to track colab with AT vendors
jd: Noting the repeating tasks that should be auto supported ... not finding
mk: also had that interest
jd: there is a github pi, will try to make a tool for us
[discussion of github]
<joanie> https://github.com/w3c/aria/projects/1
jd: We next need wg approval
<joanie> https://github.com/w3c/aria/tree/role-static
<joanie> https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/role-static/#static
jd: So we should consider
... First branch, second to role in spec
jn: We need approval for static, or can't do 1.2
jd: Think this is different,
vague recollection
... Concern about flattening to plain text
... Please consider so we can discuss
jd: I am unable 14 Dec
... Propose 4 Jan
[crickets]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152 of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/jgw/jd/g Succeeded: s/jgw/jd/g Succeeded: s/spec]/spec/ Succeeded: s/md/jd/ Succeeded: s/mc: So/mk: So/ Succeeded: s/mc: Would/mk: Would/ Succeeded: s/mc: Plan/mk: Plan/ Succeeded: s/mc: Please/mk: Please/ Succeeded: s/mc: aria-/mk: aria-/ Found embedded ScribeOptions: -final *** RESTARTING DUE TO EMBEDDED OPTIONS *** Default Present: Joanmarie_Diggs, janina, MichaelC, Matt_King, jongund, Stefan, bryan_garaventa, James_Nurthen Present: Joanmarie_Diggs janina MichaelC Matt_King jongund Stefan bryan_garaventa James_Nurthen Regrets: Becky_Gibson Found Scribe: janina Inferring ScribeNick: janina Found Scribe: MichaelC Inferring ScribeNick: MichaelC Found Scribe: janina Inferring ScribeNick: janina Found Scribe: janina Inferring ScribeNick: janina Scribes: janina, MichaelC ScribeNicks: janina, MichaelC Found Date: 07 Dec 2017 People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]