https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/848
Wilco to take a look at No-auto play at Bry's request
Is it really necessary to make all test asset paths relative?
This will invalidate a lot of data that we already have e.g. trusted tester stuff
Wilco votes not to do this... Jean Yves doesn't know... Wilco needs to take it up with Kasper
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/822
<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
Dagfin to review https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/822
Reviewers wanted for https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/447 which also needs discussion with Wilco and Jeav-Yves
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/245
https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/419 Wilco to review
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/879
Disagreement on which version of the spec we should cite
Kasper and Wilco should talk says Jean-Yves
Some spec will get slowly deprecated which is not ideal
Wilco's understanding is that w3c will continue to publish versions of the HTML spec
Not sure how frequently versions will change
Wilco is strongly in favour of w3c spec is that its required by the ACT rules format
If we link to docs or specs that change we need to track those changes in the rules
That is why linking to the newest version is a more manageable solution... wilco to follow up with kasper
Shadi says snapshots will link to the working group versions
Not availible yet but this is the future plan
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/850
<Wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/testcases/9eb3f6/f1b3be194f69c6f222f53cfd46cad299d94c8445.html
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
If not all test cases have a result then the implimentation is not complete
<Jey> https://act-rules.github.io/pages/implementations/mapping/
Curently we allow untested on inapplicable... but this is not good practice. Untested should be allowed on all types
scribe: all types be passed and failed
RGAA is stricter and checks beyound WCAG and that should be factored in for implementations that challenge ACT
Jey to talk to Audrey about this
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/844
Kasper and Jean-Yves disagree with shortening the FC to 1 week
Rules take a long time to write so why cut the 2 week review to 1
Wilco would like to propose that we reduce FC for updates
Jean-Yves agrees depending on the update
Use commonsense for judging magnitude of change and state review period as part of the update
Could update PR template to include FC period
Wilco to take this
Hang on, jumped ahead to quickly there
any objections to the previous proposal
Jey suggests using labels for 1 week or 2 weeks
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/826
Not clear as to if a combo box should or should not have an accessible name
Do we want to put an exception for combo boxes into our rules
Wilco can provide test data if needed
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
Wilco to provide test data so we can make a decision to move forward one way or the other
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/799
W3c differentiates between authors and contributers
Wilco likes idea of previous authors field
but at what point do you say you are not the current author
Shadi suggests author is the person primarily leading the process
<Jey> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/blob/develop/_rules/html-has-lang-b5c3f8.md
<Jey> Here is an example
<Wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/bf051a
<Jey> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/blob/develop/_rules/html-xml-lang-match-5b7ae0.md
<Jey> another one
Jean Yves took over a rule from Anne which has now changed drastically - should Anne still be listed as the author
He is fine keeping them but both contributors consent would be required
Shadi says this is a clear case of previous and current or new author
Wilco has a proposal... add fields to front matter for previous author, current author, contributor
It would be up to reviewers additionally to spot new authors and flag this as part of the review process
Wilco to Jey: we can add a couple of fields
Dagfin agrees that old authors that haven't contributed to major changes should not be listed anymore
Final thoughts...
lots of agenda items worked through today, looking forward to Copenhagen
Wilco - changing meeting date for October 10 which is now moving to Oct 17
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) Present: Wilco Jean-Yves Dagfinn Daniel No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: Bryn Inferring Scribes: Bryn WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth WARNING: No date found! Assuming today. (Hint: Specify the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.) Or specify the date like this: <dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002 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]