Meeting minutes
* aria #2055 merging process blocking tests, implementors
aria #2055 merging process blocking tests, implementors
pkra: what do we do?
jnurthen: jcraig's latest suggestion.
… works great except when sometimes changes impact lots of places in the spec.
… then this is difficult
… marking all of them as "not implemented" is tricky
… maybe constrain this approach to a single part of the spec
pkra: do we want to be blocked by this kind of edge case?
jnurthen: is it an edge case?
… e.g., accname from heading.
… w3c/
… 4 different places that would need a "not implemented" marker.
… that may be ok
… or not.
spectranaut: it still sounds very complicated to me.
… still trying to understand why merge is important.
… jcraig's point about implementors is good but we have such a close relationship with implementors.
pkra: it would be great to have links everywhere that show implementations / wpt etc. but is it possible?
jnurthen: in evergreen, is the editors' draft the spec?
spectranaut: I feel that the process helps authors because the spec is correct for authors.
scotto: HTML spec never publishes until there are implementations
… pretty much what we suggest.
… webkit seems fine with that.
… not clear why ARIA can't be similar.
spectranaut: maybe helps to point that out.
scotto: example whatwg/
… this seems to work.
pkra: so we try to clarify this on the issue?
<jamesn> https://
jamesn: can we build on whatwg working mode?
spectranaut: everything in whatwg is testable. But ARIA is not that easy, which is why I want us to be more strict.
jnurthen: maybe the "addition" section is a better base.
… https://
spectranaut: ok. I'll bring this back to the issue.
core-aam PR #193 blue tables
jnurthen: I think I suggested we should have our own CSS for publishing.
spectranaut: yes but I thought it just doesn't matter too much and would simplify it.
… colors are a bit odd but we'll probably get used to it.
jnurthen: I don't have strong feelings
scotto: we can bring it in and see if we find it jarring later on?
scotto: I added custom stylesheet on top of aria-in-html for table styles.
… preview pulls from base styles, somewhat broken
… but published spec is what I wanted
jnurthen: I like that
spectranaut: I don't mind. It's just a bit tedious to do PRs for every AAM.
jnurthen: modify the current one?
scotto: for the basic tables it's honestly fine. the bigger ones for change events is where it's messy.
<spectranaut_> https://
spectranaut: why do the tables look so bad?
pkra: should we figure that out and file bugs in base styles?
spectranaut: could someone write me some CSS to have all the rows equal size?
aria-common - removing mapping tables code aria-common#101 [now merged]
pkra: ah, my comment triggered this.
spectranaut: let's make an issue and see if we can re-use this.
… I alreay did.
organizing ARIA 1.4 prioritization
pkra: is there something we need to do post TPAC?
<spectranaut_> meeting minutes from TPAC: https://
jnurthen: we need to get 1.3 FPWD, then look again. We had a few people who had taken up issues. But this is too early.
spectranaut: jamesn made everyone agree to make a list of priorities :)
graphics-aria#10 prettier experiment (pkra)
pkra: jamesn wanted to look
https://
… maybe just look at the branch's HTML and see if you like it
… I did length of 200 for lines
… so there's a tiny risk to have weird formatting
spectranaut: looks good
jnurthen: look good
pkra: then I'll make it ready
spectranaut: will this run on old PRs?
pkra: not right now.
… and we'll get merge conflicts either way
jnurthen: ARIA will be hardest.
… we should roll it out slowly
spectranaut: for ARIA, need clear list of steps what to do with PRs
jnurthen: after 1.3 FWPD
spectranaut: agreed.
pkra: I'll get it ready then.
[continue] spec markup for advice for AT (jnurthen)
jnurthen: no news.
… have looked at it a couple of times. Haven't found a conclusive idea yet.
… we really need to separate out AT advice to make this work.
… we mostly have mixes with author or UA. Makes this hard.
[continue] following aria#1993 - quo vadis contributors.md w3c/aria#1993
pkra: after that, what about contributors // other specs?
jnurthen: same, right?
pkra: ok, we should do that then.
… PRs for every spec.
jnurthen: right. is that ok?
daniel: yes. we should. then handle corner cases.
pkra: right. we wanted to have a section for important people?
jnurthen: we still have a historic section?
… oh, we don't.
daniel: we have it in 1.2 so we could refer to that.
jnurthen: sounds good.
pkra: list of members up to date?
jnurthen: will prune before FPWD
pkra: that link should hopefully gather any issues you tag.