<scribe> scribe: Carlos

zamin, take up next

Final call https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/461 |

3 1-week final calls and none 2-week

Wilco: 2 of them end today

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

Wilco: "Element within body has valid lang attribute" is on final call
... Try to reach out Kasper reagarding "Orientation of the page is not restricted using..." but without success yet

Jean-Yves: "role attribute has valid value" has issues raised by the TF because it does not map to any specs
... will open an issue for further discussion

password is act-rules

Wilco: updated due dates

Have a shared list of references? https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1487 |

mitch11y: Introduced himself to the group

Jean-Yves: proposes simplification of our rule writting process
... because we have large lists of references that are duplicated
... we could have a list of definitions and just use the references in the running text of the rules
... we'll need the automation and to maintain the file

Wilco: Who's going to build this?

Jean-Yves: Not sure I can do it

<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1493/files#diff-97c739346a3fe6b2b6b58e6ce1fa8317afdc316f499d09b27a3b9689521b6868R132-R139

Carlos: The idea is good, especially for our own definitions
... not sure about links to specs that we would need to keep track of different versions
... but if no one is going to do it, then I guess we can't do much about it

Wilco: we'll wait until we have a volunteer

Jean-Yves: agreed, keep the issue open, perhaps someone will take it

Should applicability start with "this rule applies to"? https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1477 |

Wilco: we have applicability statements starting with "This rule applies to" and in other rules we don't

Emma: what do we have in the design document?

Wilco: In the template for atomic rules is starts with "The rule applies to..."

Emma: In the rule design document an example starts with "This rule applies to..."

Jean-Yves: In the ACT-R format we have 3 examples but they are not consistent

Wilco: I prefer "This rules applies to ..."

Jean-Yves: +1

Wilco: There is no disagreement. Wilco will act upon that

Should inapplicable be used to claim implementation? https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1482 |

Wilco: Now we track if an implementar runs a rule against the test cases and there are no discrepancies it's a partial implementation
... and if failed are consistent is a complete implementation
... this means that we have complete implementations for media rules that are in fact just testing the applicability

<Wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/qt1vmo

Jean-Yves: if we have rules have a canttell outcome for all passed and failed then they are complete

<Wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/c4a8a4

Wilco: this rule has no implementations, because we forgot a test case with an inapplicable example for html
... if we had, then any tool that would distinguish an inapplicable from a pass would have a complete implementation
... there are 2 things we can do
... we can make no distinguishing between rules for which implementations can be automated or not

<Jean-Yves> https://act-rules.github.io/implementation/qualweb#id-9eb3f6 <= "complete" implementation which can't tell between passed/failed

Daniel: I think it's important we have the distinction for rules that check the presence of an element and rules that check the content of an element

Jean-Yves: there are several examples of things were can only check the applicability

Wilco: if you can't tell the difference of pass from tell (i.e. just checking the applicability) then it shouldn't be a complete implementation

Jean-Yves: But just identifying the elements that are applicable is also valuable for an evaluator

Emma: I agree that we need to have a look at rules that are not being valuable
... but there is value for automation
... but we should not have just canttell as outcome

Adil: Even rules that do not have complete implementations provide value for a tester

Wilco: would it be apropriate to call these "partial implementations"?

Adil: agree

Jean-Yves: showing such implementation would show that a rule has been adopted by the community
... as a tool user is valuable to know that a tool can at least identify the elements that are applicable

Adil: most rules already require further testing to check for success criterion conformance anyway

Emma: there is value in automating what we can to help people that do testing

Wilco: we can have a label "applicability consistent"

Jean-Yves: I like that. It's transparent

+1 from everyone

Wilco will look at the labeling and needed mechanisms for this

<Wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/implementation/qualweb#id-4b1c6c

Final thoughts

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: Carlos, adil, Jean-Yves, Wilco, EmmaJPR, Daniel, Mitchell, Evan, (mitch11y)
Present: Carlos adil Jean-Yves Wilco EmmaJPR Daniel Mitchell Evan (mitch11y)
Found Scribe: Carlos
Inferring ScribeNick: Carlos

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: 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.)