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