<jamesn> agendabot, find agenda
<agendabot> jamesn, OK. This may take a minute...
<agendabot> clear agenda
<scribe> scribe: carmacleod
https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1373
sina: isn't this up to the AT?
StefanS: I think this is 1.3, because the definition of aria-roledescription needs to be sharpened
jamesn: StefanS can I assign you?
StefanS: yes, please do!
https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1373
jamesn: StefanS can you look at these together? They seem related.
StefanS: sure
https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1371
jamesn: will add Blocking label for 1.3
https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1368
jamesn: 1.3
https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1370
<jamesn> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/762
Next meaty topic
sina: note that there's a new
comment in
https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1371#issuecomment-747610449
... it references 1.2
jamesn: we can do this for 1.2
<jamesn> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1150
sarah_higley: just added a gist that has a definition of the word descendant
jamesn: cool! that's really useful!
sarah_higley: there was a bunch related to managing focus - they used the word "descendant" on its own.
jamesn: wow, there are a ton of
uses.
... this is a good starting point. we know where we stand
now
sarah_higley: also, need to add "descendant element" to the summary. There are 12 different uses of "descendant".
https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1359
decision: merge!
jamesn: holiday gift!
https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1332
mel_sumner: Matt disagreed with the following addition: "If aria-setsize is specified, authors MUST specify a value for aria-posinset."
sina: we need to allow implicit
general agreement to delete authors must and allow implicit
jamesn: what about the opposite? "If aria-posinset is specified, authors MUST specify a value for aria-setsize."
general agreement that this sentence is needed
mel_sumner: actual sentence is: If aria-posinset is specified on an item, authors MUST specify a value for aria-setsize once on the container, or individually on all the items.
jamesn: will check with browser implementors on this
sarah_higley: regarding the
aria-selected/checked pr, I'm fine with the spec saying "you
can do this if you think its ok", but I don't want any
possibility of a should
... for "Authors SHOULD NOT specify both aria-selected and
aria-checked on option elements contained by the same listbox
except in the extremely rare circumstances where all the
following conditions are met"
... would prefer something like: "Authors SHOULD NOT specify
both aria-selected and aria-checked on option elements
contained by the same listbox, however they MAY in the
extremely rare circumstances where all the following conditions
are met"
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) Succeeded: s/The/They/ Succeeded: s/Blicking/Blocking/ Present: StefanS carmacleod jamesn Sina Mark_McCarthy sarah_higley mel_sumner Regrets: JamesCraig PeterKrautzberger JoanmarieDiggs IsabelHoldsworth Found Scribe: carmacleod Inferring ScribeNick: carmacleod Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2020Dec/0021.html 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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]