Meeting minutes
[new] aria#2411 aria.js: always add "Accessible Name Required" to characteristics tables
spectranaut_: let's do that.
pkra: has to wait for aria.js
… oh, no.
jamesn: does this just add length?
… other people might not like it.
dmontalvo: I'd like a rationale why this is important.
jamesn: where do we stop? e.g., children presentational is similar.
… prohibited states & props are similar.
… this is deliberate. Why do we want to change this?
spectranaut_: accessible name required is somewhat important.
jamesn: but doesn't the same apply to children presentational?
dmontalvo: it would also add more columns/row.
… maybe better to clarify?
… in prose?
jamesn: we wouldn't say "it's not required" in prose, would we?
spectranaut_: so we add it somewhere?
jamesn: it's missing in the bit from the top.
… we have it for presentational children but not for accessible name required
spectranaut_: we should add it.
jamesn: right. we can also improve presentational children part.
… we should go through them.
spectranaut_: so accessible name in 5.2.8 ?
jamesn: maybe. We should review it.
… I don't understand some sections.
spectranaut_: that makes sense.
pkra: +1
jamesn: I'll write a response.
pkra: and agenda it?
spectranaut_: ys.
[new] aria#2407 aria.js: drop "deprecated on this role"
pkra: cannot really land without the aria.js refactoring.
… but: do we actually want this?
spectranaut_: so this would remove them?
pkra: yes.
jamesn: does HTML do this?
spectranaut_: I think removing this would mean browsers have to change how the process them. That seems like a blocker.
jamesn: yes, this seems like busy work.
dmontalvo: agree. reminds me of Wilco's comment on deprecation and stronger language.
jamesn: we could re-organize the tables, I guess. But it seems like busy work, too.
spectranaut_: should we put it on the agenda?
pkra: would be good to hear from implementors.
jamesn: I assume it's driven by not wanting to implement them in the new engine.
pkra: are there WPT test?
jamesn: good question. Seems difficult.
pkra: feels like a big web question - new engine, what to do?
jamesn: HTML has "obsolete but conforming". Will trigger warnings in checkers but authors can use.
… non-conforming features must not be used.
… it looks like it still does what to do.
[new PR] [peter] aria#2226 remove spec specific css or inline it
pkra: [presented on findings: to recap, nested lists should move to accname; table styles should be replaced by TR stylesheet's .def, the rest can be removed.
… in the discussion, jamesn raised concerns about making lists in characteristics table bulleted - but .def style seemed less problematic
… jamesn also mentioned other table styles
… overall, there was agreement to propose removing most styles.
… pkra will move the PR forward to get it out of draft