<ToddL> scribe: ToddL

<thbrunet> present_

ACT Standup

Wilco: Just finished PR for WCAG migration, updates, fixed errors on ARIA page, etc.

trevor: reviewing subject of applicability notes, CFC reviews and PR reviews

<kathy> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/2144

kathy: PR's

thbrunet: not much done, question on headers PR, not here next week

Secondary requirements explanations

<trevor> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/539/files

<trevor> agenda item is Subject Applicability

Subjective requirements

trevor: Discussion on subjective requirements

<trevor> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/2087

trevor: open up discussion to group

kathy: not sure if it is something that can be written into rules format
... liked the idea of definitions

trevor: not sure if definitions would be required

<Todd> scribe: Todd

trevor: going to close merge request because it is getting lengthy

Wilco: change "must be subjective" to "should be subjective"

trevor: do we have note saying "this is objective/subjective"?
... shows intention of rule author

kathy: likes the idea

Wilco: may run into some concerns

group discussion on whether required or optional

thbrunet: are we able to specify arbitrary tags?

Wilco: we can figure out how to do it

trevor: will make it optional

Backward compatibility to ACT Rules Format 1.0

Wilco: introduced things in 1.1 - rules in 1.0 may not conform to 1.1
... or vice versa 1.1 may not conform to 1.0 (subjective applicability conversation)
... we need to have an indicator in a rule
... indicator that it conforms to 1.1 - acceptable way for this to work

trevor: sounds reasonable

thbrunet: 1.0 rule, could be 1.1?

Wilco: would update to 1.1
... we could put this in metadata

<Wilco> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-rules-format.html#act-rule-structure

Wilco: add rules format version. Add what rule that was written for.

trevor: fine

kathy: fine

thbrunet: okay

*me is fine with it

kathy: can we add a question about checking into survey form to make sure the inapplicable samples have passed?

Wilco: can add link to changelog if that is helpful

<ToddL> scribe: ToddL

Wilco: CG meeting in a couple minutes

This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
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, kathy, trevor, ToddL, thbrunet, Todd
Present: Wilco, kathy, trevor, ToddL, thbrunet, Todd
Found Scribe: ToddL
Inferring ScribeNick: ToddL
Found Scribe: Todd
Inferring ScribeNick: Todd
Found Scribe: ToddL
Inferring ScribeNick: ToddL
Scribes: ToddL, Todd
ScribeNicks: ToddL, Todd

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.)