Meeting minutes
New PR Triage
jamesn: we're skipping issue triage this week. We want to do it every 2 weeks.
… but we'll do PR triage to get the massigned.
spectranaut_: the PR triage might move to a later point in the meeting.
jamesn: helps with late coming.
jamesn: first PR is adding rahim as html-aam editor.
clay: will do.
jamesn: next one for peter
pkra: yes.
jamesn: last one is DPUB update.
… this can be done without the group
WPT Open PRs
jamesn: I don't think anything new here this week
Deep Dive planning
aardrian: is a tables deep dive reasonable? There are 3 issues, one already had a deep dive but I'd like the others two ready by TPAC.
jamesn: depends a bit. Might make sense to wait for tpac, depending what you're after.
aardrian: right, I was hoping to prep so we can finalize at TPAC.
… I'd start with table sorting.
jamesn: do you have a preferred week?
aardrian: not super urgent.
lola: for those who don't know me, I'm independent. I was working on standards at beaucoup, incl. aria-at.
… also on TAG.
… this project I've called "accessibility compat data"
… inspired by browser compat project.
… cf. mdn.
… there've been comments asking about this kind of thing.
… there's a11y support, focused on aria attributes
… aria-at is more focused on APG
<jamesn> https://
lola: this will be a complicated project. There has been previous work and it will be important to understand what has been done or tried.
<jamesn> https://
lola: the links leads to the repository with detailed readmes, issues and (not yet public) project board.
… this is a long term effort and I hope to get a conversation going.
jamesn: this would fit into a plenary session at TPAC.
lola: yes. I'm also planning on other workshops to involve people outside of the usual groups.
jamesn: great. when do you want do the deep dive?
spectranaut_: June 19?
lola: sounds good.
aardrian: junetheenth?
jamesn: then june 12
spectranaut_: I'll schedule it.
<aardrian> w3c/
jamesn: when should do the table deep dive?
aardrian: doesn't need as much prep, I think.
… next slot would be fine.
spectranaut_: next week would be an option. I was hoping to do an aria orientation.
jamesn: ok, then more likely july.
aardrian: either is good.
spectranaut_: 29th is good.
AccName PR Bash
jamesn: 10 open PRs. Can we move some forward?
… first up: w3c/
… has 3 approving reviews.
… it's not building?
… is there any objection? It has reviews. It's not normative. There's only an ID change. Are we worried about other places linking here?
pkra: is there an official policy? E.g., "create an anchor with id"?
jamesn: nothing official, but we'd rather not.
melsumner: checks have passed. If something breaks elsewhere, we can fix it.
jamesn: can we file a bug for the follow up?
melsumner: will do.
jamesn: then let's merge.
… next one: w3c/
… this is for aria-actions. So we should probably not merge it?
… maybe move it to aria-action PR.
… next one: w3c/
… sorry, w3c/
spectranaut_: this is name from heading
jamesn: old one had 2 approving review from mel and accdc.
spectranaut_: but I never got to it.
pkra: I had made a suggestion on the other PR about name-from-heading to move things forward by splitting normative changes.
<smockle> Is this blocked by https://
pkra: this would fit here, too, since it doesn't need implementations as long as we don't specify roles that should have it.
… and maybe those PRs should be combined.
scott: right, I never got to merging those. These are older than monorepo.
jamesn: how are we on implementations?
scott: as far as I know, nothing.
spectranaut_: could someone do the work to combine them?
clay: you could merge them into each other.
spectranaut_: ah, great idea.
james: oops, doesn't quite work.
pkra: the other one is very old, too. jcraig had commented that it's difficult to rebase.
jamesn: switching back.
mel: let's add waiting-for-implementation so we remember?
jamesn: sounds good.
… next: w3c/
… has sufficient reviewers.
… this probably needs tests?
spectranaut_: we should copy the old checklist.
… let's copy the process from the old PR and uncheck (now that we can test accname).
jamesn: but it seems to match implementations.
… and maybe there are tests already.
pkra: anyone willing to write tests?
jane: I will give it a try.
spectranaut_: happy to help.
jamesn: next: arianotify draft.
… w3c/
… this is accidental.
… next w3c/
… editorial
… seems like we can close this?
melsumner: yes.
jamesn: w3c/
… two positive reviews. jcraig left a comment.
aardrian: looks like it needs more edits.
melsumner: I'll find time.
jamesn: next: w3c/
… I don't think I agree.
aardrian: bryan point was also a strong one.
jamesn: right.
aardrian: does the test cited in the issue need an update then?
jamesn: looking at the test, I think there's a misunderstanding. The test seems to follow the spec
aardrian: that's my impression as well.
melsumner: is this one of the issues we grouped in the accname board?
jamesn: I don't understand the point the PR is making.
spectranaut_: given that Bryan commented as to the misunderstanding, can we close with a comment, with the option of filing an issue?
jamesn: will do.
… next: w3c/
… we have reviews.
pkra: there's a merge conflict. but does it need tests?
scott: I think the conflict was with a related PR. I had suggested to merge the two.
… but we merged the other one a few weeks ago.
spectranaut_: so it just needs an update from Rahim.
jamesn: I'll try it.
… [live hacking]
… shall I merge?
everyon: yeah!!!!