<jamesn> agenda 1,3,2
<jamesn> agenda order is 1,3,2
<scribe> scribe: jongund
JN: We have not decided anything, JOanie can you discuss this
<jamesn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/workflow
JD: For somethign to be included
in a working draft it has to be complete
... Including authoring practices, tests and industry
commitments
... Meter is something I implemented long ago, can practices
promise to have an example
... Only very recently four properties that use to be global
and now are not
... I am pretty sure that I can implement all that stuff, it
will be tedious, and I need code review
... if we do all we said we will be violating our work flow
MK: Is the question, we are
landing a ton of practices stuff right now, almost all is
done
... That we have required for spec, but we should not ignore
the work flow
... The practices have been a good proving ground for the
spec
JN: I mostly agree with that, if
we have a PR and practices is only waiting for code
review
... All the relevant implementation stuff has been done, then
maybe it can go in
MK: As long as the other pieces are imminently
JN: Is long as everyone is in agreement
MK: As long as the APG is in agreement
JN: SOmetimes there are
scheduling issues
... Any other comments
<MarkMccarthy> +1 to MK and JN
JN: Are you good with that Joanie?
JD: yes
JN: In order to get implementation, these properties that are not global cannot be exposed
JD: I plan to work this weekend,
but that doesn't mean google and apple will be
... Do we want to mark them at risk?
MK: It you mark it as at risk, a pretty safe thing to do?
JN: MC what do we do at this stage
MC: Wide review is checking with
the world to make sure we are on track
... If we have changes we need to go back to wide review
... But there are some risks, the best thing is to be pretty
darn done
JN: Why not just go to CR?
MC: The point of wide review is
to make sure that other groups agree with the spec
... We can put in the editors note to give specific
feedback
MK: Is an editors an alternative to at risk?
MC: At risk is really only for
CR, there is not special markup
... The note says what will happen if the risk occurs
JN: I am not sure how we would message the changes to the global states and properties
MK: I think a simple editors note in the description of each property
JN: this was previously global and now these are not
JD: I propose in this case to
make an exception to the normal work flow
... Ask for feedback in wide review and if we do not get
comments and we get implementation
JN: I think this should be on a cases by case basis
JD: I am talking about specific cases
JN: Should we step through the wiki on the changes?
JD: Yes
... Can we start with role parity
<jamesn> https://github.com/w3c/aria/wiki/Plans-regarding-role-parity
JD: I am going to cherry pick
meter
... Google is totally on board with it, but I have to make some
plum changes, for superscript and subscript
... We do not need an editors note
MK: I am a little lost on where we are at in the wiki page
JN: We are SUB and SUP, Joanie
has one done and she is working with Google on another, with no
editors note because it will be done by end of this week
... Group ok?
... Time role
JD: It is already in webkit and I don't have a review from google, but it is ready to go
JN: anyone disagree?
... label/filedset is for 1.3
... Next is code
JD: It is already in webkit and is in the same patch as time for google
MK: Does time have a role?
JD: Yes
MK: We have time and timer?
JD: yes
... Should we not cherry pick time yet?
JN: We are ok with code?
JD: Yes
JN: Strong and em roles
JD: Same path as others for google
JN: The last one is associatelist
JD: There is still some work on
this, JC doesn't like the name
... JC is just looking at the names
... James Tay is also has concerns about the name
JN: I suggest we move to 1.3
MK: Pull it out of APG?
JN: Yes
MK: Is this an official decision?
JN: It is official unless there are concerns
JD: I can find the issue, I don't
have concern concerns
... First step is go to AAM and then I get the API owners to
bless it
... The current mapping are to TERM and DEFINITION
JG: We discusses all this stuff
JN: We don't have any implementation
MK: We don't have implementations or mappings, we have to move it
JD: I am pretty sure I can solve the AAM problem, we have a burning desire to get stuff done
MK: Nobody is going to use these
JN: They can get done next week
if we can
... But not today
... Is that all?
<jamesn> https://github.com/w3c/aria/wiki/1.2-Non-editorial-features-and-other-changes
JD: yes, we are adding new rules
JN: We have group role issue in APG
MK: We are good on that
JN: Time in APG
MK: We are waiting to merge
JD: I am going to cherry pick that one
N: Progress bar
JJN: I suspect we do not need that
JN: We don't need it for
APG
... We need tests and implementations?
JD: I am not going to cherry pick today
<pkra> +1
JN: braille roles to 1.3
... aria row index and column index, APG?
MK: Almost done
<joanie> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1102
JD: JT has implementation issues
JN: If it doesn't make it we need
to remove from APG
... We can put in an editors note about it being in 1.3
MK: we could do something like that
JD: JT filed an issue on implementation, I don't have mappings for apple, not clear about JC
J: Move to 1.3
JN: Leave as at risk properties
that are being removed
... MC can you look at that before I merge, I sent it to
list
MC: I need to find it
JN: Name from content no longer supported on rowgroup, needs test and implementations
<harris> sorry everyone. I've got to drop off early today
JD: I think I may have done that,
there may be some macOS issues
... Let's saty with 1.2
JN: Prohibity name from certain roles, tests and implementations
JD: There is some language on returing early
JN: I thought this was primarily for authors
MK: When accname has its next version there would be a change
<joanie> Set the root node to the given element, the current node to the root node, and the total accumulated text to the empty string (""). If the root node's role prohibits naming, return the empty string ("").
JD: We have no direct references
in ACCNAME
... It says return the empty strng
JN: I remember now
JD: Until ACCNAME goes to rec we don't have to test
JN: Are people comfortable doing that?
JD: Bottom line is moving ACCNAME seperately from other specs
MC: As long as there are no dependencies
JD: I am going to cherry
pick
... Value interface, there needs to be a value like -1, we need
to add to AAM what happens when there is not a value
... All the Accessibility APIS have value properties
... You have to return a value, but when there is not value
what should it return
... Input type none, is usually a text interface
JN: This going to deep
... This is a 1.3 issue
JD: Yes
JN: Remove aria-level on tablist
JD: Write the editors note
JN: Same with the next ones
JD: I am going to update the wiki to indicate which ones need eidtors note
JN: I will draft the editors note for review
JD: We need to coordinate on notes and implementation
zakim. next item
<MarkMccarthy> s/prohibity/prohibit
JN: braile description we have already discussed
JN: MK you need to review caption role
MK: It just showed up
JN: There are 5 and ....
... I concentrate on COMBOBOX
... What are we going to do?
MK: It is kind of an interesting
one, the APG work is done, it does not require any mapping
changes, so no browser changes, its weirdly editorial, but far
from editorial
... We have microsofts blessing that in e-mail, but not the
PR
... I am not sure if JC has reviewed it, they have had
opportunities
... We need the right stakeholders, maybe that is part of the
wide review, and see what happens
... Are you comfortable with that
JN: I just want CB to be done
MK: me too
JN: Is APG done?
MK: Yes
JN: MC what is the procedure?
MK: You can see the list of
changes at the top of the PR
... It is editorial changes
JN: Editorial changes to support the definitions
MC: If there could be controversy there should be an editors note
JN: Are you comfortable with the editors note
MK: It is all in the spec
JN: We just have a new example
MK: We have it in a branch
... If these goes forward we will remove the old examples
JD: Can I see a diff
JN: It is in a block, properties...
MK: There is a diff in the pull request 1051
JD: If we think we are good to go, this is all under combobox?
MK: Combobox and activedescendant
<Jemma_> https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1051
MK: Combobox would not be a composite it would be on input
JD: I will go with what the group
thinks, from a practical standpoint, we do not have a lot going
in that section, concerned about conflicts in merging
... It will not go into wide review?
MK: Presentational children is complete unrelated
JN: I have to leave now
JD: Someone needs to deal with the merge conflicts
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/JDL/JD:/ Succeeded: s/Jonanie?/Joanie?/ Succeeded: s/apple may not be/apple will be/ Succeeded: s/inthe/in the/ Succeeded: s/MK/MK:/ Succeeded: s/supscript/subscript/ Succeeded: s/N:/JN:/ Succeeded: s/donw/done/ Succeeded: s/imp,emtation/implementation/ Succeeded: s/foir/for/ FAILED: s/prohibity/prohibit/ Succeeded: s/thik/think/ Succeeded: s/accnam/accname/ Succeeded: s/comfortabl/comfortable/ Succeeded: s/barilee/braile/ Succeeded: s/remeber/remember/ Succeeded: s/implemtations/implementations/ Succeeded: s/chnage/change/ Succeeded: s/proceedure?/procedure?/ Succeeded: s/shildren/children/ Succeeded: s/secion/section/ Present: pkra jamesn MarkMccarthy Joanmarie_Diggs jongund MichaelC harris CurtBellew Bryan_Garaventa Matt_King Jemma_ Regrets: CarolynMacLeod Found Scribe: jongund Inferring ScribeNick: jongund Found Date: 24 Oct 2019 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]