14:01:36 RRSAgent has joined #act-r 14:01:36 logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/09/12-act-r-irc 14:01:46 agenda? 14:02:01 Jey has joined #act-r 14:02:26 agenda+ AGENDA ITEM, Final call https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3A%22Final+call%22 14:02:32 agenda+ AGENDA ITEM, Reviewers wanted https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+review%3Arequired+ 14:02:36 agenda+ Citing HTML spec: v5.2 or WHATWG? #879 14:02:44 agenda+ Difference in implementation outcomes by partners #850 14:02:45 agenda+ Reduce the Final Call period to 1 week #844 14:02:47 agenda+ Combobox owned elements shouldn't require an accessible name (f0c5c5, e086e5) #826 14:02:49 agenda+ When are "Authors" deprecated? #799 14:02:51 agenda+ Split up the repository of website vs the rules #786 14:02:52 agenda+ Validity of HTML Lang attribute (bf051a) - incorrect info about xml:lang #668 14:02:54 agenda+ Consider using accessibility tree as an input aspect #638 14:02:56 agenda+ Recognition for reviewers #239 14:02:58 agenda+ Potential failure techniques for consideration as ACT Rules #469 14:04:22 Jean-Yves has joined #act-r 14:09:51 present+ 14:09:57 present+ 14:09:58 present+ 14:10:27 zakim, take up next 14:10:27 agendum 1. "AGENDA ITEM, Final call https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3A%22Final+call%22" taken up [from Wilco] 14:10:56 https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/848 14:12:11 present+ Daniel 14:12:17 joecron has joined #act-r 14:12:36 Wilco to take a look at No-auto play at Bry's request 14:13:48 zakim, take up next 14:13:48 agendum 2. "AGENDA ITEM, Reviewers wanted https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+review%3Arequired+" taken up [from Wilco] 14:14:54 Is it really necessary to make all test asset paths relative? 14:15:45 This will invalidate a lot of data that we already have e.g. trusted tester stuff 14:16:12 Wilco votes not to do this... Jean Yves doesn't know... Wilco needs to take it up with Kasper 14:17:32 https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/822 14:17:58 Suggestion is to have a test for the test-assets wrongly referenced, rather than change any url to relative in PR - https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/887 14:18:28 Dagfin to review https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/822 14:18:53 Reviewers wanted for https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/447 which also needs discussion with Wilco and Jeav-Yves 14:19:06 https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/245 14:20:46 https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/419 Wilco to review 14:21:02 zakim, take up next 14:21:02 agendum 3. "Citing HTML spec: v5.2 or WHATWG? #879" taken up [from Wilco] 14:21:14 https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/879 14:21:54 Disagreement on which version of the spec we should cite 14:22:17 Kasper and Wilco should talk says Jean-Yves 14:23:01 Some spec will get slowly deprecated which is not ideal 14:24:12 Wilco's understanding is that w3c will continue to publish versions of the HTML spec 14:24:34 Not sure how frequently versions will change 14:25:46 Wilco is strongly in favour of w3c spec is that its required by the ACT rules format 14:26:19 If we link to docs or specs that change we need to track those changes in the rules 14:26:59 That is why linking to the newest version is a more manageable solution... wilco to follow up with kasper 14:27:43 Shadi says snapshots will link to the working group versions 14:27:55 Not availible yet but this is the future plan 14:27:58 zakim, take up next 14:27:58 agendum 4. "Difference in implementation outcomes by partners #850" taken up [from Wilco] 14:28:06 https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/850 14:28:11 Carlos has joined #act-r 14:30:38 https://act-rules.github.io/testcases/9eb3f6/f1b3be194f69c6f222f53cfd46cad299d94c8445.html 14:30:49 Should we be ignoring the entire test result for a check if an implimenter doesn't provide a definitive answer to one of the test cases 14:32:44 If not all test cases have a result then the implimentation is not complete 14:32:55 https://act-rules.github.io/pages/implementations/mapping/ 14:33:41 Curently we allow untested on inapplicable... but this is not good practice. Untested should be allowed on all types 14:33:58 ... all types be passed and failed 14:35:21 RGAA is stricter and checks beyound WCAG and that should be factored in for implementations that challenge ACT 14:37:09 Jey to talk to Audrey about this 14:37:12 zakim, take up next 14:37:12 agendum 5. "Reduce the Final Call period to 1 week #844" taken up [from Wilco] 14:37:26 https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/844 14:38:00 Kasper and Jean-Yves disagree with shortening the FC to 1 week 14:38:25 Rules take a long time to write so why cut the 2 week review to 1 14:38:45 Wilco would like to propose that we reduce FC for updates 14:39:01 Jean-Yves agrees depending on the update 14:39:47 Use commonsense for judging magnitude of change and state review period as part of the update 14:40:08 Could update PR template to include FC period 14:40:12 Wilco to take this 14:40:20 zakim, take up next 14:40:20 agendum 6. "Combobox owned elements shouldn't require an accessible name (f0c5c5, e086e5) #826" taken up [from Wilco] 14:41:00 Hang on, jumped ahead to quickly there 14:41:08 any objections to the previous proposal 14:41:23 Jey suggests using labels for 1 week or 2 weeks 14:41:32 https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/826 14:43:21 Not clear as to if a combo box should or should not have an accessible name 14:43:50 Do we want to put an exception for combo boxes into our rules 14:44:00 Wilco can provide test data if needed 14:46:50 if we can show that a combo box not having an accessible name is not a WCAG failure then can we exclude combo box from failing 14:47:28 Wilco to provide test data so we can make a decision to move forward one way or the other 14:47:44 zakim, take up next 14:47:44 agendum 7. "When are "Authors" deprecated? #799" taken up [from Wilco] 14:47:57 https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/799 14:49:53 W3c differentiates between authors and contributers 14:50:21 Wilco likes idea of previous authors field 14:50:36 but at what point do you say you are not the current author 14:51:18 Shadi suggests author is the person primarily leading the process 14:52:15 https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/blob/develop/_rules/html-has-lang-b5c3f8.md 14:52:17 Here is an example 14:52:43 https://act-rules.github.io/rules/bf051a 14:52:49 https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/blob/develop/_rules/html-xml-lang-match-5b7ae0.md 14:52:55 another one 14:52:56 Jean Yves took over a rule from Anne which has now changed drastically - should Anne still be listed as the author 14:53:40 He is fine keeping them but both contributors consent would be required 14:53:56 Shadi says this is a clear case of previous and current or new author 14:55:04 Wilco has a proposal... add fields to front matter for previous author, current author, contributor 14:55:45 It would be up to reviewers additionally to spot new authors and flag this as part of the review process 14:56:13 Wilco to Jey: we can add a couple of fields 14:56:49 Dagfin agrees that old authors that haven't contributed to major changes should not be listed anymore 14:58:17 Final thoughts... 14:58:40 lots of agenda items worked through today, looking forward to Copenhagen 14:59:42 Wilco - changing meeting date for October 10 which is now moving to Oct 17 14:59:53 rrsagent, make logs world 14:59:58 rrsagent, make minutes 14:59:58 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/12-act-r-minutes.html shadi 15:00:22 rrsagent, make logs world 15:00:29 rrsagent, bye 15:00:29 I see no action items