scribe+

ACT stand-up

Jean-Yves: Other tasks, no work on ACT

Carlos: Same here

Wilco: Spending time on TF surveys

Kathy: Doing ACT surveys

Helen: Should have done surveys for TF

markrogers: Reviewing the label in name rules updating the W3 validator

dmontalvo: Privacy and security questionnaires, and working on the ACT rules format

thbrunet: No progress to report

Sage: Done my first rule!

giacomo-petri: No time to work on ACT

ACT TF update

Wilco: We've been going over the surveys
... we really need update the rules format to 1.1
... I'll be doing it during next week's office hour

ACT F2F meeting dates https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/2201

Jean-Yves: Mark agreed to host us in Edinburgh

<Jean-Yves> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/114156/f2f-2025/results

Jean-Yves: The 3 most popular dates are in February, first, second and last week

Carlos: Mark can host us in the first and second

Jean-Yves: To have two days, close to the weekend, we have four possibilities

markrogers: The last possibilities overlaps with valentine day which makes it complicated to book a restaurant

Jean-Yves: The survey has more people available in the first week
... Let's go with February 6 and 7

Applicability of composite rules https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/discussions/2214

Wilco: When writing the target size rules, Jean-Yves proposed breaking it into 5 atomic and 1 composite
... the TF found that resulted in passing examples that shoulc be innaplicable
... solutions include using definitions and less rules, updating the rules format to not impose atomic rules to use the same applicability of the composite
... our recommendation is going with the definitions

Jean-Yves: I tried that, and I do not really agree
... The problem of passing what should be inapplicable is not new to this rule
... I would be in favor of using the outcome of an atomic rule in the applicability of the composite rule
... it does require changes in the format, and we would have to update all existing composite rules
... but I feel it aligns with the spirit of composite rules

Kathy: That would lead to rules that fail something that are not failures of WCAG

thbrunet: Feels like we're trying to make up for not having "unit tests"
... we're using rules to define functions that we know the inputs and outputs

Jean-Yves: Part of the problem is that WCAG does not have a definition of applicable
... Also, tools do not have to follow ACT exactly, and do not have to implement a check for every atomic rule that is part of a composite

Wilco: But that is already addressed
... That solution turns a tri-state result (pass/fail/inapplicable) into a boolean
... and that is what definitions are for
... that's why I think this solution is better suited

Kathy: Is there a concern that a definition would not be adequate for the media rules?

Jean-Yves: Not from me... but when writing the target size rules I found that solution to be too complex
... I agree that it works, but it was complex and an individual rule would work better

Wilco: I agree with the concern about repetition of content
... but if we want to reuse things that are not definitions there are technical solutions that do not require us to update the rule format

dmontalvo: When is the time to update the rules format?

Wilco: We are running out of time... we need to get it into CR in 3 months

Shunguo: Inapplicable state is good for explanation purposes, but for implementation it does not matter much

Wilco: We could have templates for tests of pieces of applicabilty that would be used in multiple rules

Jean-Yves: That would help when writing, but not in the reader side

Wilco: But we want to have all the information in one place

Jean-Yves: We can try it with the solution to check if this help us to manage complexity

<Wilco> Poll: A, continue with composite rules as is (option 2), B: update rules format to allow modifying composite applicability (option 4)

<Wilco> Helen: undecided

<Jean-Yves> B

<Sage> A

<Kathy> A

<Wilco> A

<thbrunet> A

Carlos: B

<dmontalvo> Subjective applicability was added to the format https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format-1.1/#Change_History

Wilco: Would you object going with A?

CarlosD: No

Jean-Yves: No

<Wilco> /me gotta run, bye!

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, CarlosD, Kathy, Helen, giacomo-petri, Jean-Yves, Daniel, Sage, thbrunet, Shunguo
Present: Wilco, CarlosD, Kathy, Helen, giacomo-petri, Jean-Yves, Daniel, Sage, thbrunet, Shunguo
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: CarlosD
Inferring Scribes: CarlosD

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.)