Meeting minutes
New Issue Triage
jamesn: skip the dpub ones
jamesn: #1858
jamesn: inconsistency with spec vs implementation of setting prop to undefined
jamesn: Chromium and Webkit both return null, Firefox returns "undefined"
jamesn: spec bug or implementation bug?
jamesn: cyns, would you like to raise in AOM?
cyns: yes, I’ll put on agenda next week
jamesn: any strong opinions here?
jamesn: #1857
jamesn: sounds like APG
scotto: yes, move it there; shouldn’t be in spec
jamesn: APG will triage it
jamesn: #162
jamesn: who can validate this?
scotto: I’ll ping this over to an Edge developer
New PR Triage
jamesn: #1159
jamesn: reviewers?
chlane: me
melsumner: me
Deep Dive planning
jamesn: do we want any deep dives for the next few weeks?
cyns: might want to talk to Aaron about aria-haspopup
jamesn: no schedule for now
AriaAttributes has many integer attributes with string types
<jamesn> https://
<jamesn> https://
jamesn: it’s been shipping for 5 years
cyns: might be worth running by AOM to see if anyone’s changed their position
cyns: after we get thoughts from AOM, I’ll talk to Domenic and see if he still cares
jamesn: it certainly needs a good deal of consideration if we’re going to change it
cyns: I’ll put on AOM agenda
Open ARIA PRs
jamesn: #1020
jamesn: we’re not doing this anymore, right?
scotto: I think I was going to do something with this, but now it’s not relevant after recent changes
scotto: this PR is no longer useful in its current form; it’d need to be redone
jamesn: closed
jamesn: #1127
jamesn: HTML always uses “may” as normative, but we only use it as normative when uppercased
jcraig: doesn’t ReSpec force the casing?
jcraig: should be easy sub from may to might
jamesn: spectranaut will pick this up for the next spec version
jamesn: we’re already very clear when something is normative
mattking: I prefer reserving words as either normative or non-normative; using case to convey that makes it difficult to interpret
jamesn: #1454
sarah_higley: in the middle of updating this
sarah_higley: a commenter pointed out some missing roles, so taking another pass
jamesn: #1494
jamesn: this is on my plate
jamesn: it sounds simple and could be simple, but it would be kind of a “hidden” requirement in its current location in the spec
jamesn: wouldn’t be easy for authors to know whether they’re meeting this
melsumner: I wonder if this would help people, because if it’s in the spec, we can have it in rules, checkers
melsumner: so maybe not too helpful when just reading the spec, but it would help for automated testing
melsumner: so this could be a first practical step
jamesn: so shall we merge this as-is, and then create a follow-up issue to clarify?
<CurtBellew> Unfortenately I need to drop.
jamesn: could there be corner cases?
jamesn: tabindex="-1" on some things, where it’s focusable but often *cannot* get focus
scotto: it already does the conflict resolution
scotto: it _should_ fail
jamesn: we‘ll merge this and then file a follow-up issue
RESOLUTION: Merge #1494 and file a follow up issue
jamesn: #1588
jamesn: will anyone review this?
melsumner: I’ll review
jamesn: #1639
scotto: this PR has been done for a while
jamesn: it’s mergeable now
jamesn: jcraig, would you review this?
jcraig: yes
jamesn: will someone else review?
jcraig: does it make sense to tag this editorial?
jamesn: if so, please tag it
jamesn: #1733
jamesn: there’s a merge conflict
jamesn: chlane, was your question answered?
jamesn: this conflict looks like something I can resolve
jamesn: I’ll take assignment
jamesn: #1738
jamesn: this is overcome by events, right?
jcraig: yes, I think so
jcraig: yes, close as won’t fix
jamesn: I‘ll leave issue #1732 open
jamesn: PR #1738 doesn’t fix it
jcraig: I’d defer to Anna and Nolan
jamesn: #1787
jcraig: I’ll review this
jcraig: yes, this seems like a good clarity change
jamesn: any other reviewers?
scotto: put me on it too
chlane: I’ll review
jamesn: #1793
jamesn: we’ve talked about this many times
jamesn: addressed by #1454, might be overcome by events
jamesn: #1811
jamesn: seems to be editorial
jamesn: the statement is normative, but we’re just moving it in the spec
jamesn: can I merge this?
jcraig: yes
jamesn: merging now
jamesn: tagging as editorial
jamesn: #1812
jamesn: I need to write a test for this
jamesn: #1827
chlane: I need group input
chlane: there are open questions about existing statements
jamesn: I‘ll agenda this for next week
jamesn: #1830
jamesn: still need to complete review
scotto: I’ll review
jamesn: #1833
scotto: quick question related to #1830
scotto: a div with contenteditable gets mapped to a text box in HTML
scotto: been talking to Aaron about how that’s problematic, especially in Windows
scotto: e.g., JAWS doesn’t want this role mapping
jcraig: in the past, suggested host language reserved roles for this
jcraig: can’t map 1-to-1 with ARIA roles
jcraig: there’s a valid case for not mapping contenteditable to textbox
Matt_King: in those cases, shouldn’t we require explicit use of role=textbox?
scotto: good segue to PR we discussed last week re: “minimum role”
scotto: jcraig, would you review that?
jcraig: yes
jamesn: added jcraig to #454
jamesn: #1834
jamesn: this can be merged
jamesn: it’s editorial
scotto: this PR expands on what the deletion role means
jamesn: #1852
jamesn: I need to fix some grammar, and melsumner, will you review?
melsumner: yes
jamesn: #1856
jamesn: we got through them all!
jamesn: and even closed some
1.3 blocking issues
jamesn: don’t need to go through 1.3 today