<pkra> I want to but I also might have to drop off early (for family reasons).
<pkra> :(
<pkra> Promise for another time.
<jemma> be back in 2min
<scribe> scribe: MarkMcCarthy
jamesn: new issues above, some just logged to bring up for f2f
joanie: talking about insert and delete?
jamesn: yes
<joanie> https://github.com/w3c/html-aam/issues/141
joanie: okay. scott, your mapping is blocking us. if you and melanierichards could attend to HTML AAM #141 that'd be helpful for us
Scott_O: okay, melanierichards let's talk later, i can also tap some other folks
jamesn: this is a 1.2 issue right?
joanie: already assigned
jamesn: issue 958 is f2f for next
week, probably don't need to specifically triage
... 957 is more of a question, don't really need to milestone
it
carmacleod: it's a good question
jamesn: we run our test cases on these, but ...
carmacleod: ok, why don't we put the test case there and ask someone to run it
Scott_O: point me to the test case and I can try to take that on
joanie: i've been doing tests for mappings, not reflections
jamesn: i think i found them
before
... 956, sounds like it should be for acc name, not aria
carmacleod: maybe
jamesn: reasonable?
... let's move that to the right repo and let bryan flag it,
i'll take care of it after the meeting
... all acc name issues we're triaging for the next
release
... 955 is just admin, can probably be closed/taken care of by
MichaelC
... we took care of IDREF issue
Scott_O: it's in process, hope to be done soon
carmacleod: only one is strong and em
jamesn: should be on the
agenda
... so no new PR issues
jamesn: PR 953 is for strong and em, joanie?
joanie: matt did a full review earlier today, he did some wordsmithing. i already pushed the smithing changes, but he raised a good comment
<joanie> While the definition says this is one or more characters, the role description does not include any information about context for appropriate use and constraints on use if there are any. For instance, can you wrap main in a div with role emphasis? What are the HTML restrictions? Can you wrap a link in emphasis or must you put the <em> inside the link text? I haven't looked up the content model for <em>. If
<joanie> an <em> cannot contain interactive content, or even a heading, for instance, the perhaps the emphasis role should have children presentational true. I think this aspect of appropriate useage must be addressed before merging. We might be able to better address this, or do so mor succinctly, when we hhave an abstract phrase-like role.
joanie: mck's comment is
above
... mck has lots of good questions! but i don't have answers
for all of them. based on all this, don't think we're ready to
merge
... waiting for others to assist
jamesn: the only restrictions we
have on this in aria spec is things like children
presentational, no other restrictions really
... sometimes in prose
<pkra> they can be nested.
jamesn: are there any hierarchy restrictions?
joanie: i don't think so, thought we rely on AP to put in specifics
pkra: didn't we have a discussion about nests? the fact they can be nested in html seems like we shouldn't put children presentational
Scott_O: there could be a use case for mimicing HTML
carmacleod: sounds like children presentational can't work too well
jamesn: why wouldn't it be valid to have an entire paragraph emphasized?
Scott_O: depends on how close we
are to mimicing what HTML allows
... you could wrap an entire paragraph in em, but follow the
proper structure
jamesn: i don't really mind whatever we choose, it'll probably work
joanie: in the spirit of consensus, could people give this some thought, comment and/or discuss with matt on the PR issue?
<joanie> https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/953
<jamesn> GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/953
joanie: those with opinions could discuss in the issue. as a screen reader dev, i just need to know what I'm getting
Scott_O: i'll get to that asap
jamesn: all said, moving on to description lists, anything else?
carmacleod: i added some
comments, ones just editorial. the other is to make sure that
we're not restricting having multiple description terms
... the definition for description terms might want to allow
for multiple terms
... we could have a "may be followed by", do some
wordsmithing
... fear it's too restrictive. does everyone agree "may be
followed by" is good?
jongund: i think if HTML5 spec says it's allowed, we shouldn't restrict it
carmacleod: I also don't think we
can merge until we figure out what we're doing with old aria,
like term
... we'd have to remove the dd in -definition definition. what
to do about term? is it superceded?
jamesn: good question
carmacleod: i don't think we can put all this in until we know what do with the old ones
MichaelC: question was is dfn superceded by term?
carmacleod: no, is aria role term being superceded by description term?
MichaelC: I don't think we'd want that. description term refers to dt in html, dfn refers to term in html.
jamesn: i think we'd remove the
old ones, the dd and dt parts, from old definition and
term
... probably do need to clarify prose. there's lots that sounds
familiar
... description term should be dt, term shouldnt be dt
Scott_O: so therre's othing related for term
jamesn: yeah, this is all kind of weird
MichaelC: in HTML, you use them
together in a way
... dt is opening list item, dfn is definition in list item
Scott_O: I thought it was in the order dl dt dd?
MichaelC: but dfn is valid child of dd
jongund: we don't have an html equivalent of 'term', so there's no base to define it from
jamesn: i believe that's correct
jongund: what's the closest thing? anything in HTML other than dt to associate term with?
jamesn: don't think so
jongund: other issue is a11y APIs have role term?
carmacleod: good question, joanie?
joanie: trying to remember, i'd probably have to do some digging
jamesn: in conclusion, more work to do to work out what the historical term and definition roles are and how they relate. and/or clarifying prose
carmacleod: yep
... don't have a solution yet
<pkra> HTML has "Defining term: if the dfn element has a title attribute, then the exact value of that attribute is the term being defined. Otherwise, if it contains exactly one element child node and no child Text nodes, and that child element is an abbr element with a title attribute, then the exact value of that attribute is the term being defined. Otherwise, it is the descendant text content of the dfn element that gives the term being defined."
jongund: if we go quick, we can just use 'term', but might not be consistent
<pkra> https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/text-level-semantics.html#defining-term
jamesn: we could theoretically have a synonym for them
Scott_O: seems like a safe path forward at least
pkra: pasted stuff from HTML spec, they do have defining term for dfn element defined
[reading through spec]
<pkra> :D
jamesn: thanks for that
carmacleod: this is complicated!
jamesn: jon, do you know a path forward? are you happy keeping this?
jongund: i can integrate carmacleod's comments. but for term... what to do here?
jamesn: we'll need to work out if we want the same role. might depend on mappings
jongund: seems we don't have much of a choice
jamesn: does it have to map to anything?
jongund: is it just a section?
jamesn: no, but it maps to something in a11y APIs?
carmacleod: tree doesn't... so...
jongund: seems it should be deprecated?
jamesn: why? a definition has a term with it
jongund: i can try to harmonize with HTML
jamesn: doesn't have to be 100% the same, but purpose has to be clear to reader
jongund: okay, i got it. i'll take a crack at it. i'll keep it in the same PR for now
jamesn: thanks all, that was helpful!
jamesn: this is carolyn's, james craig hasn't reviewed it. punt for now til we can speak to james or carolyn? objections?
[silence]
jamesn: this is one of
melanierichards' PRs
... addressed similarly to 944... let's look at 944
jamesn: [reading PR]
... so, melanie? repair techniques...
melanierichards: basically,
there's some fallback techniques with aria-valuenow. since
we're requiring this, maybe it can be removed? i changed the
wording and called them repair techniques
... seems okay in Windows
jamesn: where are the repair techs specified?
melanierichards: in the
prose
... [reading prose]
jamesn: i'm guessing we don't have test cases because they wouldn't have passed
melanierichards: i haven't dug through all of them so I'm not exactly sure
jamesn: joanie or MichaelC do you know where cases are? for scrollbar?
joanie: what authors must do is a validation issue
jamesn: [reading through issue] there's no 'must' statement but probably should be?
melanierichards: other option is if no one is doing it anyway and we're requiring it, we remove it
jamesn: errors are shoulds and
mays rather than musts
... joanie, does this sound like a good way of doing
things?
joanie: anything that is
providing default vaules, etc. doesn't go in core-aam
... we have a section for remedy in aria spec, so anything of
that sort goes there
jamesn: so goes to handling errors section
melanierichards: sounds good to me
jamesn: authors shouldn't care
much anyway!
... can you move that to error section?
melanierichards: yes
jamesn: section 9 of the document, find a place for it there and link in prose to see handling author errors
melanierichards: sounds good
jamesn: thanks!
... so this will be the same for 945 and 946?
melanierichards: let me check
<pkra> sorry, I have to drop off early.
melanierichards: yes, i think we have some comments from carolyn
<jemma> I second
jamesn: if it's ok, and there's nothing major, lets try and merge this early next week? reasonable?
<jemma> yes
jamesn: no objections, 1
second
... looking at issue 943
... any objections?
[silence]
<jemma> 942
<jemma> https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/942
jamesn: any objectings to merging?
<jemma> james: is it ready to go?
<jemma> james: no objection. we will merge 942, 943, 945
<jamesn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/wiki/Meetings/F2F_Spring_2019
<jemma> jamesn: adding the detailed schedules with github issues
<jemma> ..if you are not attending the meeting and edit the wiki
<jemma> to talk about specific issues
<jemma> or reach out to james to include the topics to the meeting agenda.
jamesn: or if you need a specific time, let us know as well
<jemma> ...we did some prepration for the meeting last week
<jemma> james: I will finialize the meeting agenda this week.
<jemma> james: is it ok to arrive one hour early?
<jemma> bryan: yes
<jemma> melanie: thanks for adding the agenda for me.
MarkMcCarthy: Big thanks to Jemma for taking over scribing for the last few minutes.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154 of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56 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/just logged/just logged to bring up for f2f/ Succeeded: s/?,?/943, 945/ Succeeded: s/../.../ Present: jamesn MarkMcCarthy carmacleod pkra Scott_O Joanmarie_Diggs jongund CurtBellew HarrisSchneiderman janina jemma MichaelC melanierichards BryanGaraventa Regrets: MattKing Found Scribe: MarkMcCarthy Inferring ScribeNick: MarkMcCarthy Found Date: 25 Apr 2019 People with action items: 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]