scribe+
<scribe> scribe: giacomo-petri
Wilco: bunch of reviews, finished up a new rule
Dan_Tripp: worked a little bit on
clipped text
... if you want reviews let me know
Helen: something will happen soon (promise)
Helen: review to look at from Kathy
kathy: trying to get this PR, since it's blocking another PR
Wilco: transcript do not need to be visible and they don't need to be visible?!
kathy: yes
Wilco: things that are visible not needed to be in the acc tree, that's 1.3.1
kathy: we discussed if transcript needs to be visible, WCAG responded no
Wilco: many different conditions,
this approach makes sense. Taking it as a whole and break it in
small pieces. Should any of these be inapplicable?
... there is no applicability based way to say this is out of
scope if the current scenario is in the atomic rule
... WCAG does not have an inapplicable state
... however SC leads people think if applicable or not
... in ACT rules we've distinguished passing from
inapplicable
... what we've done with composite and atomic rules, we don't
have a way to say that it's passing the atomic rule, but the
same is inapplicable for the composite one
kathy: if the target is inline, it doesn't have to be 24x24, so that's inapplicable
Dan_Tripp: the mapping of WCAG in inapplicable for ACT makes sense
Dan_Tripp but there are a couple of others that do not
Wilco: the fact that it's passing the atomic but it's inapplicable in the composite, is now not allowed in the act format
Helen: I think exceptions should
pass
... if we do so, I think we need to add explanation on why this
is inapplicable
Wilco: revisit rules format, and
allowing passing scenario to result inapplicable
... atomic rules to be used in the applicability of the
composite rules
... to be discussed in TF meeting?
Rachael: I like when set of rules are all interrelated in together
Wilco: curious about what you think about rules that we say are passing but indeed are inapplicalbe?
Rachael: don't know how much important for people, but thre is a potential for confusion and we must be really clear
kathy: we planned F2F meeting discussion
Wilco: not attending TPAC, not
enough people since majority is based in Europe (TPAC is in
California)
... where do we want to do that, if we decide to, and who is
going to participate?
<Dan_Tripp> +1
<kathy> +1
Wilco: pull request about who is interested in participating in F2F
<Wilco> +1
<Helen> +1 - but might be virtual
<markrogers> +1
Wilco: who is gonna host this
time?
... if interested in hosting send an email to Jean-Yves and
Carlos
markrogers: I will look into it, beautful view from the terrace to the Castle in Edinburgh
kathy: helpful to know what's involved with hosting
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: CarlosD, Helen, Wilco, Dan_Tripp, giacomo-petri, thbrunet, Daniel, catherine, Rachael, filippo-zorzi, kathy Present: CarlosD, Helen, Wilco, Dan_Tripp, giacomo-petri, thbrunet, Daniel, catherine, Rachael, filippo-zorzi, kathy Found Scribe: giacomo-petri Inferring ScribeNick: giacomo-petri 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: 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]