<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/152
<Kasper_> Wilco: We are working on an approach that isn't using selectors and steps, but instead applicability and expectations. Will need to update the rules in the next week or so.
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/128
<Kasper_> Shadi: Looking at 114, EARL uses pointers for the selecting the item range within the test subject, though the test subject itself does not include information on position. Could be the DOM tree itself, or the HTTP exchange itself. Different pointers are used for these.
<Kasper_> Wilco: Sounds fine to me. Seems outside the scope of the rules format then. Is that correct?
<Kasper_> Shadi: Yes.
<Kasper_> Wilco: Any additional comments related to recording state?
<Kasper_> Kasper: By describing aspects of the input data, rather than the input data as a whole, we get finer granularity in rules. We think this would make it easier to come up with examples of input data beyond web content.
<Kasper_> Wilco: Are we really talking about scope here? That is, scoping rules to specific technologies?
<Kasper_> Kasper: Kind of. If the aspect we're talking is text, we're really technology agnostic. Most things can contain text. Something that uses CSS would be more geared towards web.
<Kasper_> Wilco: Should we wait with this until we have a rewrite of the spec using "aspects"?
<Kasper_> Charu: We do need to expand the scope of the examples so we don't focus only on web content. Just trying to think of an example of how that would fit in. Do you have an example of what else we could include beyond HTML?
<Kasper_> Wilco: One aspect one could look at is HTTP headers. Or templates; which content is static and which is dynamic?
<Kasper_> Wilco: It wouldn't be as explicitly about specific technologies. Ebooks have a DOM to look at but also other aspects.
<Kasper_> kasperisager
<Kasper_> Wilco: This can be done with EARL so should we say that it's outside the scope of the spec?
<Kasper_> Wilco: Anything else?
<Kasper_> Wilco: Test cases we now call expectations. Do think there will be a list of common failures; the test cases.
<Kasper_> Kasper: Good point.
<Kasper_> Wilco: Do we have an answer to this then? Anyone in disagreement?
<Kasper_> Wilco: Any other comments related to test cases?
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/131/files?diff=split
<Kasper_> Wilco: Looks like a good improvement to me.
<Kasper_> Kasper: Looks good.
<Kasper_> Charu: Looks good me as well.
<Kasper_> +1
<Kathy> +1
<maryjom> +1
<cpandhi> +1
<Kasper_> Wilco: Should we have a quick dive into the review process?
<Kasper_> Shadi: I have the action item to rewrite them and to provide them for review to the group. Haven't gotten around to it yet.
<shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/wiki/ACT_Review_Process
<Kasper_> Wilco: When do you think we'll have an update on this?
<Kasper_> Next week, did I get that right?
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/152
<Kasper_> Wilco: We did discuss meta rules, I will take that.
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/140
<Kasper_> Wilco: 140 is also on me, based on feedback from Kathy.
<Kasper_> Wilco: There should be enough work left for everyone. Did I miss anything?
<Kasper_> Shadi: Back to 124, HTTP response might not be appropriate. Should be HTTP exchange, an exchange of client requests and server responses.