Meeting minutes
[continue] automation and synonyms (via aria#2073)
pkra: this is mostly to talk about my aria.js refactoring.
… which is progressing but very messy
… lots of knowledge gained.
… but still lots left to do
… we could review changes so far and merge or do something else.
… in other words: I could use some help
valerie: I could find time.
jamesn: me too
pkra: thanks. I'll work out when I want it. It's a bit of a mess to do.
pkra: and I won't forget about the actual item I mentioned - where we need new markup.
jnurthen: bikeshe would support markdown
daniel: respec supports it too
… but probably not a good time.
[continue] modernizing aria.js (aria-common#104)
[continue] PR/Merge process - next steps after deep dive?
pkra: did we follow up on that?
… e.g., with jcraig
… can somebody follow up on this?
jamesn: maybe he can read the emails :)
val: I will follow up. maybe summarize things on the issue.
[continue] roll out prettier setup - tracked via aria-common#99
[continue] retiring contributors.md across specs - tracked via aria-common#103)
jamesn: we should leave it to specs to decide
… there's a limit with github's API which might cause problems.
pkra: maybe I should go back and remove the old list from specs. Feels a fair call for ARIA WG to make
jamesn: for funders, should we keep this?
daniel: yes, for now it should.
… maybe next year.
… will check.
[on Hold] spec markup for advice for AT (jnurthen)
what do we need to complete for 1.3 FPWD
jamesn: what do we need to do?
… remove association list code.
… as per WG decision
… changelog
… probably go for automated + manual editing afterwards
daniel: we'll find out more things when we push it through the publication process
jamesn: right.
pkra: other specs, too? accname?
jamesn: right, we'll need to do this for all specs.
bryan: the main accname thing would be inline/block label stuff.
… that's holding up other work.
… it's waiting for review.
jamesn: does it have to be for CR?
… because once we are in CR, we're evergreen and we can make the changes quickly
bryan: that sounds good.
jamesn: we had a CfC already, I think.
bryan: not sure but think so
jamesn: we've had a CfC for core-aam and accname in Oct 2022
pkra: looking at core-aam, should it say somewhere that it's evergreen?
daniel: we don't use that term but it's in our charter
pkra: so it's always called "draft"?
jamesn: we can do snapshots.
jamesn: if we can publishing something for accname today that's better than right now, we should do it.
… @daniel should we do another CfC? Is it too old?
daniel: yes.
jamesn: do we then need a wide review?
daniel: could list changes
jamesn: right. it's short. but wide review always finds issue. internationalization will likely find something.
… so we need to do a new wide review?
daniel: yes
jamesn: can we clean things up fo that?
bryan: will talk to Melanie. Is it basically reviewing things and making sure nothing outstanding?
jamesn: just "better than last version" seems fine.
bryan: ok.
jamesn: I'll try to get the process running by January.
daniel: sounds good.