wilco: lots of approvals, nobody objects
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/346/files#r269943399
romain: it's a detail, any top-level web page can _also_ be embedded in an iframe
... can we use the WCAG def here?
wilco: it's an example, we may not want to show how to reuse a definition here
anne_thyme: I also think the sentence itself is hard to understand, we don't know what's the subject of "embedded" (the page or element)
wilco: any improvement suggestion?
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/346/files#diff-9ac0a6633720a5535b0a53cba04ababeR302
wilco: the current wording is "where the document element is an `html` element not embedded in another page"
anne_thyme: so it's the element that is not to be embedded?
... Kasper, aren't you using "document" instead of "page" in this case?
cpandhi: what about "any page where the root html element is not embedded in another page"
<cpandhi> How about, The rule applies to any Web page with a root HTML element not embedded in another page
romain: or copy WCAG's definition? "a non-embedded resource obtained from a single URI using HTTP plus any other resources that are used in the rendering or intended to be rendered together with it by a user agent"
<shadi> [[The rule applies to any page where the document element is an `html` element, and the `html` element is not embedded in another page. Examples of an `html` element embedded in another page can be as part of an `iframe` or `object` elements.]]
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-web-page-s
anne_thyme: we can consider the test subject to filter out the case when the element is embedded
romain: proposal "this rule applies to active documents in a top-level browsing context"
... but maybe it's too far off the usual terminology used in WCAG/ACT
Wilco: we could put "top-level browsing context" in brackets to explain "non embedded"
romain: sounds good to me
<Wilco> The rule applies to any page where the document element is an `html` element, and the `html` element is not embedded in another page (in a top-level browsing context).
The rule applies to any page where the document element is an `html` element, and the `html` element is not embedded in another page (i.e. when thje `html` element is rendered in a top-level).
anne_thyme: or switch the parenthesis and main content, so that the precise definition comes first
Wilco: ok
<Wilco> The rule applies to any page where the document element is an `html` element, and the `html` element is rendered in a top-level (i.e. the `html` element is not embedded in another page).
<shadi> +1
+1
<cpandhi> +1
maryjom: I fixed the consistency issue reported by anne_thyme
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/350/files#diff-9ac0a6633720a5535b0a53cba04ababeR520
maryjom: let's look at line 520 (see wilco's link above)
... " A common example of accessibility requirements are the WCAG 2.1 success criteria. There are other standards, including W3C standards, that have recommendations for accessibility, such as WAI-ARIA and HTML. Accessibility requirements are also often found in company policies, regional standards or in legislation."
... do we need to genericize that to just "WCAG success criteria" or do we specify "WCAG 2.1"?
Wilco: 2.1. WCAG 1 didn't have SC
shadi: nobody talks about WCAG 1 anymore anyways
... I think when you say "WCAG SC" it only applies to WCAG 2 in a generic way; when you mention a specific SC, we want to point to 2.1
Wilco: anyone objects to changing it?
[no one objects]
wilco: PR approved
Wilco: we'll now need to start gathering evidence for implementation
... we created the list of exit criteria
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/wiki/Exit_Criteria_for_Rules_Format_Spec
wilco: we need a way to track where we are for implementations
... generally there's a lot of work in auto-wcag (soon to be renamed)
... I think maryjom had a suggestion to pull up a table in the wiki
... we'd have a table with each of the exit criterion in it, then a column with all the implementations we have
maryjom: or just put "implementation #1", "implementation #2" with links
Wilco: shadi what's the process there?
shadi_: there is no specific process. it needs to be agreed at the end
... for WCAG there was an entire database where people did the testing, and provided evidence, etc
... it was an elaborate process
... it would help to have someone as the lead editor here, to get an oversight
Wilco: so maybe maryjom can take on the maintenance of the table, and I'll take on making sure that anything that is implemented in auto-wcag goes in the table
shadi: we can do group reviews as well
Wilco: right, makes sense for that to be a re-occurring agenda item
... I need to go over auto-wcag and see what's needed to make them fitting
... anything else?
shadi: we can also look into people both on this group and auto-wcag to take ownership of some rule updates
... putting them in the right format
Wilco: right. we need to do some structural changes in auto-wcag first
romain: if I want to provide a sample rule for EPUB, does it need to be at a permanent URL, does the rule collection matter or can I just put it in a temporary place (gist)
shadi: you might want to put it in the wiki
Wilco: gist is fine, it will stay there
... other questions?
[crickets]
<shadi_> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag-act/2019Mar/0019.html
Wilco: we only had +1 on that
shadi: the latest comments seem to only be editorials
Skotkjerra: and they're also seem to be more auto-wcag related than about ACT rules
Wilco: shadi is there a timeline?
shadi: we may be able to get it out within the next week or two
... i'm meeting with Michael tomorrow to discuss the timing
... the CR has to be open for at least 28 days
... is that sufficient to do all the rules updating etc? how long do we want to have the CR phase?
Skotkjerra: if we do it mid-April there are the Easter holidays to take into account
Wilco: then people will have time to work on the rules, yay! :)
... I imagine it will take at least two months
shadi: we don't have to have completed the implementation gathering within the 4 weeks, just the review period
Wilco: ok. I sort of feel we know who we want to ask for reviews
shadi: other thoughts? does anybody would need more time to try out and implement it (rather than us documenting our implementations)
romain: wouldn't it make sense to align the implementations gathering and the review period? what if we find sth in the implementation gathering and we're out of the review period?
Wilco: 4 weeks sounds a bit short to me
... I think 6 weeks would be good
shadi: I'll take with Michael as well, to see if AG have any perspective to share on the timing
twalters: what are the implementation work looks like?
Wilco: we want to look at auto-wcag rules and see if they conform to the format, and also look at some methodologies
twalters: and this will all be on github?
Wilco: yes, most of it in the auto-wcag gh repo (soon to be renamed)
twalters: is there any more that is conducted outside of github in the mean time; I have been issues getting into gh due to internal security policies, can I help anywhere else?
Skotkjerra: it's always possible to read what's on gh without a login, and then comment on the mailing list
twalters: ok, so that I can always see the line number and comment on that
Wilco: yes, good suggestion Skotkjerra
... does anyone has anything else?
... ok, let's close the meeting