16:41:08 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #aria
16:41:08 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/04/28-aria-irc
16:41:10 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
16:41:12 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jamesn
16:41:14 <jamesn> meeting: ARIA WG
16:41:21 <jamesn> chair: ValerieYoung
16:41:29 <jamesn> agendabot, find agenda
16:41:29 <agendabot> jamesn, OK. This may take a minute...
16:41:29 <agendabot> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/2b92a902-1365-4ea0-8c68-9f8ae2106fe3/20220428T130000
16:41:29 <agendabot> clear agenda
16:41:29 <agendabot> agenda+  -> New Issue Triage https://bit.ly/3vMH4tC
16:41:30 <agendabot> agenda+  -> New PR Triage https://bit.ly/3vNTQYE
16:41:32 <agendabot> agenda+  -> Deep Dive planning https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates  - today (before this meeting) - OpenUI, next week Dialogs
16:41:35 <agendabot> agenda+ APG Migration - do we need group approvals?
16:41:38 <agendabot> agenda+  -> Combox example code is missing accessible name for the listbox https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1725
16:41:41 <agendabot> agenda+ Can we close?  -> Inconsistency between native and ARIA listboxes when implicit aria-selected is provided https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1661
16:41:44 <agendabot> agenda+  -> Support aria-description https://github.com/w3c/accname/pull/69
16:41:47 <agendabot> agenda+  -> Initial aria-textseparation (depends on generic PR being merged) https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/996
16:41:50 <agendabot> agenda+  -> 1.3 triage https://github.com/w3c/aria/milestone/11
17:00:40 <pkra> pkra has joined #aria
17:00:51 <scotto_> scotto_ has joined #aria
17:01:35 <spectranaut> present+
17:02:38 <CurtBellew> CurtBellew has joined #aria
17:03:00 <harris> harris has joined #aria
17:03:48 <myasonik> myasonik has joined #aria
17:04:13 <myasonik> present+
17:04:16 <Jem> present+ Jemma
17:05:05 <Jem> agenda?
17:05:28 <harris> present+
17:05:34 <MarkMcCarthy> MarkMcCarthy has joined #aria
17:05:37 <MarkMcCarthy> present+
17:05:39 <MarkMcCarthy> scribe: MarkMcCarthy
17:05:40 <StefanS> StefanS has joined #aria
17:05:44 <MarkMcCarthy> zakim, next item
17:05:44 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- -> New Issue Triage https://bit.ly/3vMH4tC -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:05:47 <scotto_> present+
17:05:50 <cyns> cyns has joined #aria
17:05:50 <StefanS> present+
17:05:57 <pkra> present+
17:06:02 <MarkMcCarthy> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1730
17:06:31 <MarkMcCarthy> cyns: assign to me, i've worked on this
17:06:41 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: 1.3?
17:06:44 <MarkMcCarthy> cyns: yep
17:07:03 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: next --
17:07:03 <MarkMcCarthy> https://github.com/w3c/html-aam/issues/397
17:07:36 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: for triage purposes we shoul dbe good to go, might need discussion later. it's assigned to me anyway
17:07:39 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: sounds good
17:07:47 <MarkMcCarthy> cyns: 1.3?
17:07:54 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: it's HTML AAM
17:07:58 <MarkMcCarthy> zakim, next irem
17:07:58 <Zakim> I don't understand 'next irem', MarkMcCarthy
17:08:00 <MarkMcCarthy> zakim, next item
17:08:00 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- -> New PR Triage https://bit.ly/3vNTQYE -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:08:15 <MarkMcCarthy> https://github.com/w3c/html-aam/pull/398
17:08:32 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: this one needs review, and a discussion
17:08:58 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: steve faulkner has started in on making sure the outline matches what exists in reality
17:08:59 <siri__> siri__ has joined #aria
17:09:21 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: a good time to work on it. the hgroup is being respecified to allow for a single heading element and perhaps paragraph elements to serve as subheadings
17:09:24 <CurtBellew> present+
17:09:32 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: there's a bunch of hgroups in the wild that contain multipl eheadings
17:09:58 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: this PR is to indicate that these hgroups should look at their children, and the highest level heading should be respected
17:10:21 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: for discussion -- is that what we want? does this tie into dpub? does it need something like a a role of subheading?
17:10:43 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: that's the gist, i just need reviewers and people to weigh in on discussion if necessary
17:10:54 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: so maybe this should be an actual meeting discussion?
17:10:59 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: or can be resolved in the comments
17:11:08 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: does this need to wait until the PR from steve lands?
17:11:29 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: yes, arguably, but could discuss anyway. doing something with hgroup as it exists now, there's room for improvement
17:11:48 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: we could review the current [hgroup], but i'm mainly looking for discussion right now
17:11:54 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: should this be a draft PR then?
17:12:00 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: i can do that, i just wanted to discuss today
17:12:12 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: reviewers?
17:12:14 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: i will
17:12:41 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: cool. next --
17:12:42 <MarkMcCarthy> https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1729
17:13:02 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: seems like a small change, editorial?
17:13:20 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: i believe it is, we could just change this example
17:13:32 <MarkMcCarthy> pkra: yes it's an example, but the change is in AOM
17:13:42 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: a change to use something that isn't as complicated
17:13:56 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: lgtm as is, right now.
17:14:04 <MarkMcCarthy> pkra: i'll take a look
17:14:13 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: cool, next --
17:14:14 <MarkMcCarthy> https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1728
17:14:44 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: just an update to an example, already reviewers assigned
17:14:53 <MarkMcCarthy> zakim, next item
17:14:53 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- -> Deep Dive planning https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates  - today (before this meeting) - OpenUI, next week Dialogs -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:15:23 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: we just had a sync up with OpenUI and now having regular meetings to improve comms with them
17:15:35 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: any plans for new ones or any that anyone would like to add?
17:15:52 <MarkMcCarthy> aaronlev: we might want to put some of the specific things that are discussed in OpenUI into those deep dives
17:15:53 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: +1
17:16:03 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: once they get tagged w/ us, then we might want to
17:16:34 <MarkMcCarthy> aaronlev: right - there's lots of overlap. sounds like ther's a lot of discussions re: aria happening. not too late to get involved, but we'll want to soon -- I also worry it might flood us all out a bit
17:16:49 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: let's wait to see what gets tagged to us before making any decisions
17:17:41 <MarkMcCarthy> aaronlev: if i find somethin specific for a deep dive i'll add something
17:17:42 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: +1
17:17:45 <MarkMcCarthy> zakim, next item
17:17:45 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- APG Migration - do we need group approvals? -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:17:56 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: from Jemma - go ahead!
17:18:36 <MarkMcCarthy> Jem: two things - we're aiming at updates for APG on May 18. wondering if APG would need to go through an approval process. if so, what's needed, what steps do we need to do, etc.
17:19:00 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: to clarify - every time that an APG note was published in the past, the WG gets a chance to review first (though we usually gave standing approval)
17:19:29 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: do we want to allow APG-TF to publish without approval? I personally say yes, as many TF members are also in the WG. APG's update process is also very thorough
17:19:41 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: but it's agroup decision, please let your opinions be known
17:19:49 <MarkMcCarthy> s/agroup /a group
17:20:05 <MarkMcCarthy> [silence]
17:20:12 <sarah_higley> sarah_higley has joined #aria
17:20:24 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: realisticall, we might want a CfC just to get the news out there. I don't think it could hurt
17:20:39 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: would also give APG the ability to publish updates without WG being involved?
17:20:42 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: sounds good to me
17:20:56 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: i can do that today, i'll make it a 48hr one - shouldn't need much debate
17:21:37 <MarkMcCarthy> Jem: the reason we're working on a redesign, we want to be able to keep it as up to date as possible, rather than having to wait so long for approvals etc
17:21:43 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: making it more evergreen
17:21:45 <MarkMcCarthy> Jem: right!
17:21:49 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: that's great!
17:21:52 <MarkMcCarthy> zakim, next item
17:21:52 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- -> Combox example code is missing accessible name for the listbox https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1725 -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:22:14 <jamesn> q+
17:22:16 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: this is what PR 1728 was related to, right?
17:22:22 <MarkMcCarthy> siri__: i think this is taken care of
17:22:44 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: it's the same thing as previous. we were discussing in APG on Tuesday (4/26)
17:23:29 <MarkMcCarthy> Bryan: i think we decided to go with the fact that listbox needs to be labelled, even if it's not explictly focused, and the combobox is
17:23:36 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: which is to say, we're going with Jon's example
17:23:37 <Jem> https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/issues/2290
17:23:37 <MarkMcCarthy> ack j
17:23:42 <MarkMcCarthy> zakim, next item
17:23:42 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- Can we close?  -> Inconsistency between native and ARIA listboxes when implicit aria-selected is provided https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1661 -- taken up [from
17:23:45 <Zakim> ... agendabot]
17:24:05 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: just wanted to make sure we could close this issue. Sarah, do you think your PR sorts this?
17:24:14 <MarkMcCarthy> sarah_higley: i believe so, but if anyone else has thoughts please let me know!
17:24:40 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: i think we can close then, just wanted to make sure everything was covered
17:24:49 <MarkMcCarthy> sarah_higley: please reopen if anyone disagrees :)
17:24:51 <MarkMcCarthy> zakim, next item
17:24:51 <Zakim> agendum 7 -- -> Support aria-description https://github.com/w3c/accname/pull/69 -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:25:18 <MarkMcCarthy> Bryan: I think the last comment was asking for more clarification, not sure of its current status
17:26:25 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: I agreed with jcraig's review, my only other comment is concering the HTML elements. either needs to be outlined as a subset to allow for more clarity, or we need to pull in ALL the stuff. not sure what the best way forward is
17:26:43 <MarkMcCarthy> Bryan: I'm not sure either. aaronlev, jamesn, any comments?
17:26:51 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: i dont have any
17:26:59 <MarkMcCarthy> aaronlev: let me take a look
17:27:37 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: my feedback in my review is that i agreed with jcraig, but I wasn't sure about the inclusion of the HTML attributes
17:28:08 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: title makes sense, but I'm not sure about value, for instance. there's a case that these things should stay part of the accname for these elemnets, rather than descriptions
17:28:32 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: particularly because of WCAG - if some of these things aren't part of the accname, they won't be as accessible for STT
17:28:46 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: i think this might need some review in general, it might not be right
17:28:53 <MarkMcCarthy> aaronlev: we could make a followup issue
17:29:09 <MarkMcCarthy> aaronlev: it's basically to help simplify things for a browser when calculating a name or description
17:29:31 <MarkMcCarthy> aaronlev: we'll probably uncover more things as we discuss. it's not that i disagree, but maybe just to go with the flow for now
17:29:53 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: that makes sense. but if it changes here, maybe it needs to change elsewhere
17:30:11 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: and details/summary, summary doesn't provide anything to accname anyway...
17:30:32 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: there are things covered here that aren't in HTML-AAM and vice versa. so really, where does it need to live?
17:31:12 <MarkMcCarthy> aaronlev: i was just trying to make it readable, really. i think having a table with an order of preference is much easier to read, rather than what exists (outline of logic)
17:31:26 <MarkMcCarthy> cyns: more of a test driven spec - inputs and outputs - than implementation driven?
17:31:50 <MarkMcCarthy> aaronlev: kind of like a checklist, i just want to make things readable
17:31:54 <MarkMcCarthy> q+ jem
17:32:12 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: if we want to keep examples i think that makes sense, but also need to know this doesn't cover everything
17:32:20 <Jem> ack
17:32:24 <Jem> q?
17:32:27 <MarkMcCarthy> ack j
17:32:28 <Jem> ack me
17:33:03 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: i'm fine either way, but if there are varying rules, we should say see HTML AAM for examples.... or exactly what to do. there's a lot in many places
17:33:14 <MarkMcCarthy> aaronlev: that makes sense, and would love some help.
17:33:39 <MarkMcCarthy> aaronlev: as long as the info is covered, and it's *understandable*, I don't really care what spec it's in as much
17:34:00 <MarkMcCarthy> aaronlev: i think it's more an issue of readability and human-optimiation, vs. browser implementation
17:34:11 <MarkMcCarthy> s/optimiation/optimization
17:34:52 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: so, what would WG like? to include all applicable elements *here*, or make HTML AAM spec in line with this table? which i'm happy to do. if that's the case, I'll remove steps 3-5 and reference HTML-AAM
17:34:54 <Jem> +1 to Scott's suggestion
17:35:01 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: same info, but less hunting for things
17:35:15 <MarkMcCarthy> aaronlev: sounds good to me, i'd like to review
17:36:11 <MarkMcCarthy> Bryan: it makes sense to document it as fully as possible, if you're willing to help with that. can get a lot lost in translation
17:36:15 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: so do it all in accname?
17:36:20 <MarkMcCarthy> Bryan: right
17:36:33 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: that sets a precedent then that accname is where we specify everything
17:36:39 <MarkMcCarthy> aaronlev: for names and descriptions, yeah
17:36:56 <MarkMcCarthy> Jem: my +1 was for HTML-AAM
17:37:24 <jcraig> present+
17:37:27 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: in recent memory, i got lots of pushback from SVG and Math about defining anything in HTML for those bits of content - they wanted me to point to their specs
17:37:46 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: i'm fine with bringing this HTML content over, but the other editors may not be
17:38:01 <MarkMcCarthy> aaronlev: can we see a draft of what your thinking, with everything collated but linking out?
17:38:07 <sarah_higley> sorry, have to drop early. +1 to HTML AAM
17:38:18 <Jem> +1 to Aaron's suggestion
17:38:22 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: yeah. i'll move forward with things, let me know your opinions as you have them
17:38:24 <MarkMcCarthy> zakim, next item
17:38:24 <Zakim> agendum 8 -- -> Initial aria-textseparation (depends on generic PR being merged) https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/996 -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:38:51 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: what's the status of this one then
17:39:22 <jamesn> agenda?
17:39:34 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: i think we talked about this recently - matt is going to do the work on it, and in the short term i said Core-AAM could have a note in it that div and span map to generic, but the CSS display affects how AT will respect those
17:39:42 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: can someone help write the note for that?
17:40:08 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: info for what needs to be done is in Core-AAM #112
17:40:43 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: this would be a good "good first issue" issue
17:40:51 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: lets add a tag like that to core-aam
17:41:31 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: how urgent is this?
17:41:42 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: it's been blocking me for a bit, to be honest
17:42:10 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: div generic and span generic had different mappings. to say they're both generic is disingenuous, and loses nuance
17:42:29 <MarkMcCarthy> jcraig: i can try, add me to it please
17:42:47 <MarkMcCarthy> s/both generic/both the same generic
17:42:53 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: i'll add you to the assignees
17:43:16 <Jem> agenda?
17:43:20 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: Core-AAM issue #112
17:43:31 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: are we just waiting for Matt then?
17:43:46 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: nothing else at his point, that note is what will give us some more breathing room on this
17:43:54 <MarkMcCarthy> zakim, next item
17:43:54 <Zakim> agendum 9 -- -> 1.3 triage https://github.com/w3c/aria/milestone/11 -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:44:23 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: who's ready to volunteer for more?? [laughter]
17:44:45 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: maybe what we should do is find issues that aren't assigned to anyone and close or reassign
17:44:49 <jamesn> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%22ARIA+1.3%22+no%3Aassignee
17:45:21 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: there are 22 issues that don't have assignees
17:45:53 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: let's begin!
17:45:54 <MarkMcCarthy> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1714
17:46:14 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: my answer to that issue's question is "yes"
17:46:47 <MarkMcCarthy> pkra: I added this to the owned elements project, relates to cleaning up spec about owned children, descendets, etc.
17:46:54 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: do you think it will be resolved inthat work?
17:46:57 <MarkMcCarthy> pkra: it COULD be
17:47:23 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: so let's leave this in 1.3, then?
17:48:01 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: first thing we'll have to check is if Firefox and Safari do the same as Chrome. if so, should be relatively simple
17:48:24 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: aaronlev, is there a test case for this?
17:48:40 <MarkMcCarthy> aaronlev: no, but we might've had one somewhere...
17:48:58 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: it'd be helpful for us to all test the same thing on all browsers
17:49:20 <MarkMcCarthy> aaronlev: i cannot volunteer to write a test case
17:49:33 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: if someone were to write one, could you tell us/them what you meant, then?
17:49:36 <MarkMcCarthy> aaronlev: that I could do
17:49:47 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: i can write a test case
17:50:07 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: if the test case passes, easy! if not, more difficult!
17:50:11 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: next --
17:50:15 <MarkMcCarthy> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1691
17:50:32 <MarkMcCarthy> pkra: this has a PR and is waiting. should be simple
17:50:40 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: no need to discuss then
17:50:43 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: is it waiting on me?
17:50:55 <MarkMcCarthy> pkra: i think it might be - have a look if you feel it
17:51:03 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: i'll look
17:51:25 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: next!
17:51:26 <MarkMcCarthy> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1688
17:51:38 <MarkMcCarthy> pkra: another editorial
17:52:02 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: one of the editors has to handle this one
17:52:05 <MarkMcCarthy> pkra: assign me
17:52:14 <MarkMcCarthy> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1662
17:52:38 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: we discussed this, i think.
17:52:59 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: my first question, do we envision changing the association list stuff into stable in 1.3? we didn't put it in 1.2...
17:53:28 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: do we see association list etc etc etc as useful things in ARIA, or were they just for role parity that no one asked for?
17:54:02 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: we need to do them now, term and definition aren't DD DT DL elements - so it's hard to know what to map everything to for parity
17:54:23 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: it's a little confusing as is, and there's not a lot of consistency
17:54:56 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: i'm not sure exactly how much use ARIA would get out of these
17:55:15 <MarkMcCarthy> siri__: fwiw I don't recommend using DD/DT/etc. often either
17:55:57 <MarkMcCarthy> jcraig: i want to clarify: sarah_higley voted for the first option, though what I had listed was actually two steps
17:56:30 <MarkMcCarthy> jcraig: i have no strong opinion on which of the two (list and associationlist) is needing to be kept
17:56:48 <MarkMcCarthy> jcraig: we shouldn't add any more restrictions than necessary
17:57:06 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: what's that mean if you have listitemkeys and listitemvalues in the same list though?
17:57:27 <MarkMcCarthy> jcraig: i'm not sure, but I'd wait until/if we see antipatterns emerge
17:57:40 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: does this need to happen in 1.3? is it a mapping issue?
17:57:44 <MarkMcCarthy> zakim, who is here?
17:57:44 <Zakim> Present: spectranaut, myasonik, Jemma, harris, MarkMcCarthy, scotto_, StefanS, pkra, CurtBellew, jcraig
17:57:46 <Zakim> On IRC I see sarah_higley, siri__, cyns, StefanS, MarkMcCarthy, myasonik, harris, CurtBellew, scotto_, pkra, RRSAgent, Zakim, aaronlev, bkardell_, chlane, jamesn, MichaelC, tzviya,
17:57:46 <Zakim> ... jongunderson, agendabot, Jem, gregwhitworth, github-bot, zcorpan, jcraig, joanie, `join_subline, spectranaut, timeless_, ZoeBijl, slightlyoff, bigbluehat, dcaro, JonathanNeal,
17:57:46 <Zakim> ... Josh_Soref_, trackbot
17:58:04 <MarkMcCarthy> jcraig: if we're pushing this to 1.4, we should also push associationlist
17:58:06 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: +1
17:58:18 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: do these need to stay in the spec then?
17:58:30 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: i don't object, I think it could help with HTML-AAM
17:58:41 <MarkMcCarthy> present+ BryanGaraventa
17:59:17 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: we could drop the idea of making roles for these and specify them individually, noting they aren't consistently mapped and are a little quirky
17:59:25 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: as is, though, there is a problem
17:59:51 <MarkMcCarthy> jcraig: it'd help with consitent results from browser devtools, and would help with testing moving forward
18:00:09 <MarkMcCarthy> jcraig: we could improve reliability if we map those
18:00:15 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: that's a good argument
18:00:27 <MarkMcCarthy> RRSAgent, make minutes
18:00:27 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/04/28-aria-minutes.html MarkMcCarthy
18:00:45 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: lets take path of least resistance, put it in 1.3
18:01:06 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: do we need to discuss this more? I feel we didn't reach consensus
18:01:14 <MarkMcCarthy> scotto_: yeah, agenda+ it
18:01:33 <MarkMcCarthy> jamesn: i think that's reasonable. i don't have objections to jcraig, as we don't have separate OL, UL
18:01:48 <MarkMcCarthy> spectranaut: let's get it in a meeting, and then we could find a volunteer
18:01:56 <MarkMcCarthy> RRSAgent, make minutes
18:01:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/04/28-aria-minutes.html MarkMcCarthy