Wilco: We had the proposal for CR on the AG meeting Tuesday
... we gave a brief introduction of the changes we made
Shadi: I haven't heard from the chairs yet on the timeline
Wilco: It will go in review with the AG. It will go into CFC. It will probably take some time past CSUN, but we don't have a definite timeline on it.
Stein Erik: What there any reactions from the AG?
Wilco: There were one question on the note about Input Aspects. Except for that, there was not much to report.
Mary Jo: It was very brief.
Shadi: On that note, the AG has an important decision to make on whether to go into Silver or WCAG 2.2, so we need to keep reminding them to do our review, since they have a lot on their plate. So if you have a colleague, please remind them.
Wilco: We have got a long list of open issues. All of this is editorial work, so I think it makes sense for us to go through the list and decide on what needs to be done, what needs to be done by editors and what can be done by other people
... #335: Elaborate on complex aggregation
Shadi: You can assign it to me. If I remember it correctly, it was to spell out how you can write a rule that tests for 80% of something. Just a little more elaboration, so that people will know how to address a rule like that
Wilco: #333: Update the CSS reference in the Common Input Aspects note
... I think this is a Moe question, and she is not on the call
Shadi: It's generated by Bikeshed, and it needs some updates, so you can assign it to me and Moe
Romain: I think the CSS group releases as snapshots every year. I don't know if there is a way to reference the latest version.
Shadi: Bikeshed uses the list published by W3C
Wilco: #331 - Assign that one to me
... #330: Add an example or two of applicability
... Assigning it to me
... #329: Add example for External Accessibility Requirements mapping
Shadi: Could someone from EPUB be interested?
Romain: I could do it before end of CR
Shadi: for CSS, it seems the link https://www.w3.org/TR/css/ points to the latest Snapshot note
Wilco: #327: replace "failure condition" - I think we solved it. Yes, we can close this
... #324: Look at using RDF for the ACT Rules Format
... I remember we said we park this until we make it to recommendation. Are we still okay with that? It seems so...
... #323: Cleanup balance between WCAG 2.0 and WCAG 2.1
Mary Jo: I can do that.
Wilco: I think I have cleaned it up in the current draft. Do we want to refer to only 2.1 as is?
Shadi: I think when we talk in general about WCAG, we should just say WCAG, when mentioning specific success criteria, we mention newest version.
Wilco: #317 - that is done
... #316: Use consistent case and styling for outcomes
Mary Jo: Add me to it
Wilco: #315: Add links to Outcome definition
Mary Jo: Does every mention need to link to the definition or only first mention in a section?
Wilco: For definitions, I think every one needs to be a link
Mary Jo: I can take that one
Shadi: We don't have a particular style convention for that at W3C, but I think WCAG links every time
... If there is a paragraph where the term is mentioned 2-3 times and there is no way of paraphrasing, just link the first one. We did that for WCAG-EM
Wilco: #302: Make clear the ACT Rule Format list minimum requirements for ACT Rules
... This one is done
... #299 - outdated, closing
... #298 - duplicate of #330. But interesting that we marked it as "For CR". Is anyone concerned about that?
Mary Jo: I think it is editorial
Shadi: Anne, you originally raised this, are you okay with us waiting?
Anne: Yes, if it is even still relevant
Wilco: I am closing it as a duplicate
... I am assigning it to me
... #291: Write an explainer for the spec
... I think we settled on that we are not doing this, but I don't know if we made a definitive decision
Mary Jo: No, I don't think Romain was on the call, and we didn't want to close it without him
Romain: There is a recommendation from W3C that all new specs have an explainer to make it easier for external reviewers to review even though they don't have the same context
for ref, the TAG page on explainers: https://w3ctag.github.io/explainers
Shadi: It's not required, so it's up to us to choose if we want to follow the recommendation
... In an ideal world we would have split out the requirements and the background information into two documents.
... I think it is good practice, since rule writers might just want to look something up without having to sort through all the background info.
Mary Jo: But it is such a small spec...
Shadi: Yes, and it would be a lot of work splitting it up now, so far down the line
Wilco: I suggest we don't write it unless we are asked for it
... Closing issue
... #288: Add note that applicability can include the page as a whole...
... Related to #298 - we'll add an example
... #285: Add an explanation about why to include the outcome definition
... That could probably go into a note
... I think this was based on a question from Trevor. Do you remember?
Trevor: Not really...
Anne: I think that since we have moved it into a Glossary section now, it explains itself a bit better
Wilco: No objections to closing this one? Closing
... #249: Rule Description: Example needed (Shadi)
Shadi: I think it has been addressed
Wilco: #268: Failure techniques relationship to ACT Rules and conformance (Anne)
Shadi: It might be good to say that some rules are consistent with failure techniques, but sometimes techniques are broader.
... Or something along these lines
Anne: I think my concern has been addressed with the Outcome mapping
Wilco: I think it would be good to mention here as well, since Failure techniques are specifically mentioned in the requirements document
... Assigned to Shadi
... #229: Investigate how to use EARL with ACT RF
... This was more of a concern in a previous version, now that we have an outcome for each test target, it is not so problematic anymore
... and I now see the EARL examples have inconsistencies...
Shadi: They are non-normative, so it can be fixed
Wilco: Assigning to Shadi
... #224: List of features for exit criteria
Shadi: I suggest keeping it open until we hear back from AG, but we can remove the discussion label
Wilco: #222: Wrong reference to WAI-ARIA 1.1
Shadi: Assign it to me, it's the Bikeshed references again
Wilco: #216: Need non-versioned biblio reference tags
Shadi: I think we fixed this, but assign it to me and Moe, and we will make sure before we close it
Wilco: Next items are labelled "Rules repository" - we don't have to look at that before CR
... We'll have to look at whether we are going to need to have a rules repository at all
... #142 - licensing between task force and community group
Shadi: I think we sorted that with licensing in Auto-WCAG
Wilco: #139: Consider a new section on "Evaluating a Rule"?
Romain: I don't think we need that anymore
Wilco: #98: Need better example of permanent change log
Romain: I also created a new one #338, but it's trivial
Wilco: Can we publish new editor's draft while moving into CR?
Shadi: We shouldn't publish until AG has reviewed, just create pull requests, then when we are in CR we can start publishing again.
Wilco: Should we give everyone a break from meetings until after CSUN to get these things done?
... Yes...
... Romain opened a new issue
Romain: You can assign it to me
Wilco: We'll meet next week to update people on where we are at with CR. Meeting on March 14 (CSUN week) is cancelled.