scribe+
First rule with 2 reviewers - Role attribute has valid value - 2 ready as is, closing out
Rule - Scrollable content can be reached with sequential focus navigation - Tom recommends changes
Open issue has a merge pull request on it - looks resolved and hasn't been closed yet. Wilco has now closed it
There was a concern with mapping that Wilco believes shouldn't be a blocker - accept rule as reviewed and double check with Tom
Rule - Menu item has non-empty accessible name - 2 ready as-is, closed it out
Rule on line 54 had two ready as-is, accepted rule as reviewed and closed out
Last Update column date formatting brought up by Kathy, Wilco noted to make changes to format later
Rule d346e4 - Open issues exist and changes are requested by Tom
Open issues not considered urgent, but can be worked on by Wilco during office hours. Wilco to double check with Tom to see if he is okay with closing it out
Rule 9e45ec - Kathy requests changes, link going to 2.1 instead of 2.2
^ The "Learn about"* link
Wilco notes we may have this problem everywhere, or more widespread
No known open issues for "Learn about" links under to WCAG 2.1 instead of 2.2, Wilco has created one
Kathy brought up open issue 2002 as well - Wilco says other rules didn't consider this a blocking issue, agreed to mark review as complete and close out
Rule 24afc2 - Kathy brought up same issue with Learn about links and same 2002 issue - Closed out as with previous rule
Rule 2779a5 - Helen requested changes based on open issue that has since been closed - review closed out
Rule 59796f - Wilco requested change - PR 2225 was opened to fix an issue, not considered urgent, but requesting a review. Dan, Kathy, and Sage to review. Closing out rule
Rules on lines 67 and 68 both had two ready as-is reviews and were closed out
Sage's rules being reassigned to Wilco, Kathy, Shunguo to be completed in a 2-week time frame
On open issue #2220 - Mass update for rules format 1.1
Kathy's suggestions are not from the rules format - were in fact from the glossary, as Kathy thought glossary was being updated.
Glossary should be updated soon, but was not intended for this open issue. Kathy was making suggestions to remove "{A term} is", where listing the word in the definition of the word is considered redundant. Kathy suggested changes for all of these instances for consistency
Seems the practice of starting a word's definition with the word in the glossary happens more often than not. Rules format changes for this are not going forward, marking that conversation as resolved
Other issue for cantTell in the Glossary - a change in wording from "not" to "whether" to improve clarity. Wilco suggests we don't make change here, first decide whether it should be updated in the Rules Format, and if so, make same change here.
Similar suggestion for "Untested" in glossary. Same is suggested to make the change to the Rules Format first, leaving those as-is. Kathy to approve
Kathy will open a PR to make above changes to Rules Format
Last sentence in 2nd paragraph of 4.4.1.2 Secondary Requirements - Wilco believes we can leave out "the Background section of " or "in the Background section of the rule." Agreement from Kathy and Sage
Item that came up from Sage's review - for 4.12 Glossary - The intention here was to give an option for definition in the rule OR to use a shared glossary (HTML spec, shared HTTP rules glossary PDF) - doesn't need to be in the rule as long as there is a clear connection
The hope was that links to external glossary would link to evergreen specs that don't change, or link version of that external spec. Sage brought up that that idea wasn't clearly expressed in Rules Format - Wilco suggests a note
Kathy asks what the note would say - Wilco thinks something like "Linking to external specs is sufficient, when using evergreen specs, make sure there is a date associated"
Kathy wonders if an external spec would be considered a "shared glossary" - when an external spec changes, do we need to update the rule versions?
Wilco - If we want to know that we're using the latest version, it requires some date for when that definition was pulled. If we wanted to update it, it would result in an update to the rule version
Wilco to take on creating the note to add to 4.12 Glossary section
<Kathy> Thanks for scribing, Sage!
This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Default Present: (no one) Present: (no one) WARNING: Fewer than 3 people found for Present list! No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: Sage Inferring Scribes: Sage 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]