scribe+

Composite rule applicability

<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/discussions/2214

Wilco: Recap - when we have a complex rule, the logic to put together things is complicated. Recent one is target size rule. There are 5 or 6 conditions.
... our rule structure where we have composite rule, where we feel something that should be fail are still a pass.. that doesn't feel right
... allow the composite rule update that is not a part of the atomic rule.
... part of the applicability, narrower scope in the composite rule than in the atomic rule
... none of that feels right, so the suggestion we went to the community group with is 'we can do this today by having applicability in both composite and atomic rules', there is repetition

Jean-Yves isn't in favor of it

Shunguo: If target size is too small, it is an automatic failure

Wilco: Kathy, any comments?

Kathy: I like the idea of definitions instead of rules, not quite clear on Jean-Yves challenges on the approach

Wilco: Biggest problem, composite rule is going to need their own logic for checking the page. The way ACT rule works is based on the input.
... information needed to run the rule is the input
... for composite rule, the output of the atomic rule, they won't have access to the page
... it was kept that way to avoid creating additional complexities and logic
... tools in the market won't be able to implement the way we want it to work

Kathy: Follow-up question, the challenge with using definitions

Wilco: Definitions rely on information from the page

Kathy: Couldn't atomic rules have same in the applicability

Wilco: that's we ended up proposing

Kathy: missing the part where composite won't have the same applicability as atomic rule

Wilco: listed it in discussion notes - 4 options

Kathy: option 2 is where we have definitions in the applicability of both the atomic and the composite rules

Wilco: we need a single rule

Kathy: we still need some rules for others

Wilco: No, not really. We won't be reusing any of it. For the target sized enhanced only one requirement 44*44, so only one rule.
... Jean-Yves's preferred option is option 4, a scenario where we have the atomic rules but have some of those used for applicability
... what I don't like about it, those atomic rules ends up saying, "Target is in a text block"
... it is odd and the logic falls out

Kathy: do we think that a definition could be used for each of these
... do we really need a rule for some of these?

Wilco: All of these can be definitions

Shunguo: Question on browser default, browser would automatically adjust the spacing, should we want to give some sort of pass, if it falls under default

Wilco: there are some exceptions and it covered by the rule

Sage: I am trying to understand

Wilco: Jean-Yves, we will end up with a atomic rule for inline control

Tom: it fails the rule but not the applicability

Wilco: Jean-Yves favors solution 4
... is that a preferable solution to using definitions here

Kathy: point about inline, we shouldn't be using ACT rules to determine this
... using inline to say pass or fail is not the right approach

Wilco: we shouldn't change the rules format
... doesn't anyone disagree
... take it back to community and say we are leaning towards 'Option 2'
... in our next meeting, we can say 'Yay' or 'Nay'

Annual Rule Reviews

Wilco: we have an annual review process, we go through it to ensure that they are up-to-date
... we have assigned it to folks who were available to do it
... do we need to go over the process?

Sage: I have been working with Kathy, I have been doing the first one and understanding the rules of doing it
... few final questions on the final questions on the form

Wilco: taking some things off Sage's plate to help... since it took few hours
... do a couple and let me know if it needs to be reassigned
... Shunguo, are you interested in doing it?

Shunguo: Yes

Wilco: There's a list of published rules, where we have two different people checking each rule.
... to fill out the form, copy the ID number, answer the questions, put in your comments and name and submit it
... the form data is populated into the sheets

few to be assigned to Shunguo

Kathy: rules format 1.1 needs update, so should we mark it

Wilco: no
... if there are things that can be done as a batch update, we can assign it someone to get it done

Sage: I have a lot of comments

Kathy: one of the things that Sage found, the definitions and glossary

Wilco: the glossary doesn't have to be in the same page on the rule

Kathy: some html specs that are outside

Wilco: whether we need a generic glossary or the rule specific glossary
... we should update the rules format to make sure external glossary definitions are cleared up

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: suji, Kathy, Wilco, Sage, thbrunet
Present: suji, Kathy, Wilco, Sage, thbrunet
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: suji
Inferring Scribes: suji

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: 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.)