present=
<scribe> scribe:jemma
mc: two publication is ready
joanie
joanie: I would like to consider Brian's feedback
<jamesn> https://github.com/w3c/accname/issues/5
bg: I can work on it tomorrow or so
joanni: I can take the PR then
mk: we can do add some bandaid and do more on next version
joanie: that is what I suggested
<Zakim> joanie, you wanted to ask about the "otherwise"
mc: I can do publication after next Tuesday
<jamesn> https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/511
jn: Clarify that owned-by author rules need explicit role attributes
<jamesn> linked validator issue - https://github.com/validator/validator/issues/425#issuecomment-269841829
mk: It is relevant to linked validator issue. I kind of agree with the idea.
jn: I hear Matt you are not agreeing with this.
mk: yes
... I am not sure whether i follow "implied requirement for
host languages" argument.
mc: me either
... it is implementation question to the validator
mk: example will be ul, li with div role list item? or is this problem unique to table and grid?
jn: we may need to make it clear, what validator can do with the case of implicit role and explicit role mix
bg: I think it is grid specific
mk: grid may be the unique case
bg: I think so
mk: there is no implied item for
tree widget
... fix can be..
... aria in html rule, you cannot put list role in li tag
jn: matt, can you own this issue and work on it?
mk: it is 1.2 issue
... ok I will take care of the issue
<joanie> https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/761
<joanie> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/aria/pull/761.html
<joanie> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/aria/pull/761.html#paragraph
joanie: this was done during face to face aria meeting
<joanie> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/aria/pull/761.html#blockquote
<joanie> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/aria/pull/761.html#caption
<joanie> Authors SHOULD reference the element with role caption by setting aria-describedby on the figure or table.
<joanie> On-screen descriptive text for a figure or table in the page.
joanie: leaved out header and footer
jg: what about p?
jm: img was only exception
mk: Do we want to add more info about "blockquote"?
jm: I am fine with adding "section"
in blockquote
jm: blockquote is the "section of
content quoted from other content"
... this will be the only change.
jn: editor's draft vs working draft
<jamesn> Features which are "ready" (as defined above) should be cherry-picked from the "master" branch to the "stable" branch in each of the relevant repositories (e.g. ARIA, Accessibility API Mappings, and Authoring Practices). The "stable" branch serves as the source for publishing Working Draft revisions.
jn: any questions on the new workflow?
mk: I have a question about role parity
joanie: I can file the issue for core aam regarding role parity issue.
<jamesn> https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/2CQyd8XL/
jn: here is the draft
... let me know what you think
<jamesn> Thank you for the opportunity to review the changes made to the HTML 5.3 Specification. Due to circumstances the ARIA working group has not been able to review in detail the changes in HTML5.3 made in response to PR 1133 - https://github.com/w3c/html/pull/1133
<jamesn> However, the ARIA working group applauds the effort to make the HTML 5.3 specification consistent with the HTML in ARIA specification.
<jamesn> While there are some places where some working group members do not agree with individual restrictions being placed by the ARIA in HTML specification, these will be raised as individual issues against the ARIA in HTML specification. However, the ARIA WG does not plan to submit formal comments on either spec as a group at this time, and is ok with the documents proceeding through any upcoming transitions.
pull 1133 is "Fix discrepancies between HTML and ARIA in HTML specs"
janina: we can suggest adding section about some more info like individual issue follow up..
<jamesn> While there are some places where some working group members do not agree with individual restrictions being placed by the specifications, these will be raised as individual issues against the specifications going forward. However, the ARIA WG does not plan to submit formal comments on either spec as a group at this time, and is ok with the documents proceeding through any upcoming transitions.
jn: is that ok?
janina: yes
jemma: yes
rrsagents, make minutes
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/tree/tree widget/ Succeeded: s/add/adding/ Succeeded: s/yest/yes/ Present: BryanGaraventa Joanmarie_Diggs MichaelC jamesn janina jemma_ jongund melanierichards Regrets: Stefan No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: jemma_ Found Scribe: jemma Found Date: 31 May 2018 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]