W3C

– DRAFT –
ARIA WG

25 July 2024

Attendees

Present
alisonmaher, CurtBellew, giacomo-petri, katez, keithamus, Rahim, Siri, smockle, sohara, StefanS
Regrets
-
Chair
-
Scribe
jamesn, keithamus

Meeting minutes

New Issue Triage

spectranaut_: Will handle the prettier error in the editors meeting

w3c/accname#244

spectranaut_: there is some discussion and a suggestion

bryan: should probably be discussed

spectranaut_: would be easier to discuss from a PR If there is a clear direction

w3c/html-aam#553

spectranaut_: aaron provided the mappings

spectranaut_: might be a good first issue for someone who wants to get involved in mappings

smockle: Would like to take that on

Last new issue is a doc issue. Rahim assigned himself

<discussion of respec>

New PR Triage

w3c/aria#2293

spectranaut_: would like reviews - is editorial and a good small issue to review

Rahim & Curt volunteer to review

w3c/aria#2292

scott: follow on to not using the title attribute for name prohibited. This required to create a new grouping in the HTML-AAM Acc namre computation

scott: added a prohibited name section and some revisions to other sections

scott: would like implementors to push ahead with non-landmark footer/header roles before adding those to the prohibitied section

spectranaut_: adding Rahim

scott: suggest aaron

spectranaut_: will result in implementation changes so should ask implementors

w3c/aria#2291

spectranaut_: added reviewers

w3c/aria#2290

OliverH: clickable can be added to anything

spectranaut_: this is triage so we're not opening that now

WPT Open PRs

spectranaut_: no new ones

Deep Dive/TPAC planning

spectranaut_: lets go through the list and see if we still need to deep dive them

w3c/aria#2162

spectranaut_: lots of discussion

giacomo-petri: still needs discussion

giacomo-petri: will try to organize to see if we can discuss during TPAC

jamesn: can we F2F candidate this one?

w3c/aria#2147

spectranaut_: are folks interested in discussing this

sarah: is the topic flowto or how to make flowcharts work

scott: flowto will not really solve that problem

sarah: a bunch of work needs to be done up front

spectranaut_: lets remove deep dive issue as no one is pushing it forward

w3c/aria#2137

remove deep dive from this

also remove deep dive from w3c/html-aam#506

w3c/aria#1951

remove this too

w3c/accname#95

Clarify spec treatment of value "undefined" (i.e., as equivalent to invalid value, initial condition for state/property usage)

Rahim: link to deep dive minutes

Rahim: in the issue - a couple of specifics here

Rahim: Is an invalid value treated the same thing as an undefined value?

Rahim: Should the spec explicitly state that the undefined value/string is not an initial condition for authors to use (e.g., aria-expanded="undefined") in expectation of a downstream ARIA state change?

spectranaut_: w3c/aria#2280 (comment)

spectranaut_: is an invalid string the same as undefined

spectranaut_: what does undefined mean for a switch?

spectranaut_: that is the only place invalid is discussed

keithamus: a little confused - are we talking about "undefined" or the JS primitive of undefined?

keithamus: is this IDL reflections or HTML attributes

Rahim: I think both

Rahim: multiple ways to set these things

keithamus: there is no undefined primitive in HTML - using setAttribute always a string

IDL is subtly different

keithamus: how the HTML spec deals with enumerated attributes

Rahim: there is no clarity about the invalid value default and missing value default

keithamus: the attribute reflection rules around IDL mapping

keithamus: effectively 1110 needs a bit of a cleanup of the various IDLs - once we go through each attribute then can map out the invalid and missing states. The DOM string IDL reflection then becomes valid

Rahim: undefined value and string are not the same thing

sohara: that part of the spec was written before IDL existed for aria

sohara: we should just know that undefined as a string couldn't be that

sohara: we need to investigate what browsers are doing with the undefined string right now

keithamus: undefined as an attribute maps to something useful in aria?

sarah: have done the investigation

sarah: there are now a bunch of issues but will find it

sarah: the string undefined is not being treated as the value undefined

sohara: does the undefined string do anything useful in aria?

sohara: noticed that it at least primed the browser

sohara: if i change the state of a button with expanded undefined then the browser would expose the state change

sohara: very corner case where found it actually had some implementation practicallity

<smockle> https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/2172#discussion_r1596119911

<smockle> https://jsfiddle.net/pobwvgs9/

smockle: undefined behaviour in different browsers

<sarah> keithamus you're right, setAttribute + undefined does set the string 'undefined' for the aria-* attributes I tested, I think I was mixing it up with IDL reflection

keithamus: undefined to prime the browser. Browsers have a concept if something exists on a node. It is reasonable to put that in the bucket of these are invalid states. You could probably prime the browser with foo

<sarah> i.e. el.setAttribute('aria-expanded', undefined) results in <el aria-expanded="undefined">, and el.ariaExpanded = undefined not

Rahim: wanted to add that a confusion was it wasn't clear how it was being specificied - markup vs setAttribute vs IDL - authors may expect the same behaviour

keithamus: IDL is the special case as JS has a concept of undefined but HTMl doesn't

keithamus: assumes strings and puts in the quotes for you

keithamus: HTML and setAttribute assume stringzs

keithamus: if you set null in IDL will have a missing value

Rahim: HTML reflection is much clearer

keithamus: HTML IDL reflections are very clear. The ARIA mixin

keithamus: TLDR we need to define missing and invalid value defaults for each of the attributes

keithamus: we may need to define a custom algorithm for some of the IDL mappings

sarah: string vs value undefined - not seeing any difference in actual mapped APIs

sarah: not seeing any different for invalid value vs undefined

spectranaut_: are we getting closer to an answer

sarah: agree with keith that the string is an invalid value not a missing value

<Rahim> Keith and I were assigned this: w3c/aria#2281

Rahim: believe this will cover the issue we are discussing

keithamus: going to be difficult to achieve due to existing code which may depend on this behaviour

spectranaut_: will mark this as a duplicate of 2281

<spectranaut_> jamesn: it sounds like a use case that there might be errors from validators on

jamesn: invalid values would fail validators for the priming use case

<spectranaut_> jamesn: suggests specing it

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 228 (Tue Jul 23 12:57:54 2024 UTC).

Diagnostics

Maybe present: bryan, jamesn, OliverH, sarah, scott, spectranaut_

All speakers: bryan, giacomo-petri, jamesn, keithamus, OliverH, Rahim, sarah, scott, smockle, sohara, spectranaut_

Active on IRC: alisonmaher, CurtBellew, giacomo-petri, jamesn, katez, keithamus, Rahim, sarah, Siri, smockle, sohara, spectranaut_, StefanS