<scribe> scribe: Jey

AGENDA ITEM: Final call https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/461;

<Wilco_> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3A%22Final+call+1+week%22+

<Wilco_> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3A%22Final+call+2+weeks%22+

AGENDA ITEM: Rules ready for W3C publication https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1120;

<Wilco_> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1120#issuecomment-585812132

<Wilco_> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1322/files

Food for thought: move this list to a wiki page, as there is not enough space for tables...

Aron to help out on reviews for some open prs

Jym, suggests to request reviews from a few people, rather than not suggesting anyone

Take away: always assign reviewers when opening a PR

Should error identification be provided in text? [36b590] https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1299;

Author of the rule and issue is not on the call

So taking this off the agenda today

Reconsider how many notes we have in rules https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1305;

Jym, is both in agreement and not about reducing the number of notes o rules

<Wilco_> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1340/files

Unpicking through some PR's where notes were updated

We can put together a list of guidelines for notes etc.,

<Wilco_> https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#assumptions

Going through all the PR's where notes are updated & discussing about Assumptions

<EmmaJ_PR> +present

Conclusion: we can experiment with how we update notes and aim to update the rule design accordingly

How strict should our test cases be? https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1306;

Wilco's opinion is test cases should be succinct and concise to the rule it tackes

Shadi agrees that test cases cannot be exhaustive, but we should set a high bar

a detailed discussion on what is the benchmark for these testcases (several examples like shadowDOM etc., are discussed)

Jym, again discusses how if we add edge case testcases and an implementer does not implement for a given example test case what and how does the implementation be accounted for?

From the site:

An implementation that has all passed and inapplicable test cases correct, but only has some of the failed test cases correct is called a partial implementation.

https://act-rules.github.io/pages/implementations/mapping/#automated-mapping

deep diving into an example about "role=none" and "aria-label", conclusion being sometimes its a balance and well informed choice to be made by each tool author(s)

Shadi, is it worth splitting a rule into two, where one is an extended set of examples

Emma, may be we can pull out conflicts from the spec (where things are not clear), and discuss/ provide feedback to the spec itself so that can be improved.

Wrapping up, thank you everyone.

This is scribe.perl Revision of Date 
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: Wilco_, Jey, Jean-Yves, EmmaJ_PR, present
Present: Wilco_ Jey Jean-Yves EmmaJ_PR present
Found Scribe: Jey
Inferring ScribeNick: Jey

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth


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.)