16:57:10 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #aria
16:57:14 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/08/14-aria-irc
16:57:14 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
16:57:15 <Zakim> Meeting: ARIA WG
16:57:32 <jamesn> agendabot, find agenda
16:57:32 <agendabot> jamesn, OK. This may take a minute...
16:57:32 <agendabot> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/5a155237-d896-464b-9c5f-6dd1654293ae/20250814T130000/
16:57:32 <agendabot> clear agenda
16:57:32 <agendabot> agenda+ -> New PR Triage https://github.com/search?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+created:%3E=2025-08-07+repo:w3c/aria&type=Issues
16:57:33 <agendabot> agenda+ -> WPT Open PRs https://bit.ly/wpt_a11y
16:57:36 <agendabot> agenda+ -> Deep Dive planning https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates
16:57:38 <agendabot> agenda+ -> ARIA IDL updates: enumerated attribute conversions, new "enumerated" wai-aria type, IDL examples https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/2484
16:57:42 <agendabot> agenda+ Any other issues?
16:58:38 <spectranaut_> spectranaut_ has joined #aria
17:01:21 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #aria
17:01:21 <Adam_Page> Adam_Page has joined #aria
17:01:26 <giacomo-petri> present+
17:01:37 <Adam_Page> present+
17:01:49 <smockle> present+
17:01:51 <jamesn> agenda+ ariaNotify spec draft
17:01:55 <smockle> https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/2577
17:01:58 <filippo-zorzi> present+
17:02:11 <Jacques> Jacques has joined #aria
17:02:11 <Rahim> present+
17:02:22 <jamesn> agenda+ cross root ID references
17:02:38 <spectranaut_> present+
17:02:52 <Rahim> scribe: Rahim
17:02:57 <katez> katez has joined #aria
17:02:58 <sarah> sarah has joined #aria
17:03:01 <katez> present+
17:03:03 <sarah> present_
17:03:05 <sarah> present+
17:03:09 <Rahim> zakim, next item
17:03:09 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- -> New PR Triage https://github.com/search?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+created:%3E=2025-08-07+repo:w3c/aria&type=Issues -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:04:41 <Rahim> sarah: Added "transparent generic definition", and dded a reference to aria-live. Want others' thoughts
17:05:09 <Rahim> Rahim:  (James, Valerie, Adam all offer to review ARIA PR #2599)
17:05:59 <Rahim> keithamus: Can skip ARIA PR #2598, don't want to spend too much time. Needs more work before it's ready for review
17:06:09 <Rahim> jamesn: Should this be in draft status?
17:06:12 <Rahim> keithamus: I can do that
17:06:58 <Rahim> jamesn: Cynthia has offered to be an editor for core-aam and svg-aam
17:07:12 <Rahim> zakim, next item
17:07:12 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- -> WPT Open PRs https://bit.ly/wpt_a11y -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:07:57 <Rahim> jcraig: unless there are updates, can move on
17:08:02 <Rahim> zakim, next item
17:08:02 <Zakim> agendum 2 was just opened, Rahim
17:08:11 <Rahim> zakim, close this item
17:08:11 <Zakim> agendum 2 closed
17:08:12 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
17:08:12 <Zakim> 3. -> Deep Dive planning https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates [from agendabot]
17:08:45 <Rahim> jamesn: no new deepdives, and none are scheduled. Any proposed ones?
17:08:49 <Rahim> zakim, next item
17:08:49 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- -> Deep Dive planning https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:09:01 <Rahim> zakim, close this item
17:09:01 <Zakim> agendum 3 closed
17:09:02 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
17:09:02 <Zakim> 4. -> ARIA IDL updates: enumerated attribute conversions, new "enumerated" wai-aria type, IDL examples https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/2484 [from agendabot]
17:09:07 <Rahim> zakim, next item
17:09:07 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- -> ARIA IDL updates: enumerated attribute conversions, new "enumerated" wai-aria type, IDL examples https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/2484 -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:09:16 <cyns> cyns has joined #aria
17:09:27 <cyns> present+
17:09:56 <spectranaut_> scribe+ spectranaut
17:10:28 <spectranaut_> Rahim: the status of this, we are all in agreement, which attributes should be move to enumerated. I'm writing wpt tests to test the new behaviour, all browsers will fail for now
17:11:17 <spectranaut_> Rahim: keith and anne brought up the fact there is overlap between valid keywords, that map to the same state. For example, false/undefined/empty string might all map to false. So I think simplification can happen
17:11:30 <spectranaut_> Rahim: I wanted to check about what would be the most tenable approach for simplification
17:11:44 <spectranaut_> (rahim reads his options as written in the pull request)
17:13:03 <spectranaut_> Rahim: Anne said we don't need to specify "undefined", just the empty string
17:13:09 <cyns> q+
17:13:27 <spectranaut_> keithamus: my opinion is that we should aim for the minimum set that apply to the state. where the invalid state maps to false
17:13:46 <spectranaut_> keithamus: the string of "false" mapping to false, the empty string mapping to "false"
17:13:57 <spectranaut_> keithamus: engines will have on canonical keyword
17:14:11 <spectranaut_> keithamus: the string of empty string and the string of undefined are not represented in the engines
17:14:34 <spectranaut_> keithamus: the string of foo is not represented in the engines, but still maps to false
17:14:50 <spectranaut_> keithamus: these are not values that the engine understands
17:15:45 <spectranaut_> Rahim: luke from igalia is going to be adding some more spec updates regarding reflected/enumerated, introducing "empty value default"
17:15:59 <spectranaut_> Rahim: where we have empty strings, the empty value default would be a good way to document that state
17:16:37 <spectranaut_> Rahim: there are some attributes that don't reflect in conventional manner. like aria-invalid, it has spelling grammar true and false... but if I pass any string value, the invalid value default is true
17:17:10 <spectranaut_> Rahim: the only case where not all invalid strings map to invalid value default (scribe did I catch this right????)
17:17:27 <jamesn> ack cy
17:17:33 <spectranaut_> keithamus: aria-invalid, for invalid value default would map to the true state
17:17:41 <spectranaut_> cyns: I think option 1 is the easist to understand
17:17:49 <spectranaut_> cyns: I don't see a strong reason not to do it that way
17:18:21 <spectranaut_> keithamus: those values are not valid values, so why do we chose to list those, when there are infinite values we could list
17:18:37 <spectranaut_> cyns: the values we list are values that existed in teh past
17:18:49 <spectranaut_> keithamus: so does the spec reflect what authors do, or what authors+engines should do
17:19:03 <sarah> q+
17:19:04 <spectranaut_> cyns: undefined existed in previous versions of this document
17:19:14 <spectranaut_> keithamus: maybe for that reason we can have a note
17:19:22 <spectranaut_> keithamus: explaining the historic stuff
17:19:38 <spectranaut_> Rahim: that is the reason why I opted for reason 1 initially
17:20:30 <spectranaut_> jcraig: did I hear keith say that for something ... for html "checked" the undefined content value, maps to the false state
17:20:36 <jamesn> ack sarah
17:20:50 <spectranaut_> sarah: aria-checked does have an undefined state, but the string undefined would be  null
17:21:12 <spectranaut_> sarah: I was going to say what keith said about the note was right
17:21:18 <spectranaut_> sarah: an fyi for authors
17:21:36 <spectranaut_> keithamus: I would like to add a caveot to option 3
17:21:54 <spectranaut_> keithamus: we shouldn't use RFC
17:22:00 <spectranaut_> keithamus: in the notes
17:23:21 <spectranaut_> jcraig: aria-pressed changes the role.... (something about this scribe didn't catch)
17:23:44 <spectranaut_> sarah: aria-checked to tree items removed default selected state.
17:23:58 <sarah> q?
17:24:01 <spectranaut_> mattking: those items are not selectable
17:24:16 <spectranaut_> jcraig: this is important to call out in that informative note
17:24:52 <spectranaut_> Rahim: some attributes have an undefined state, which maps more to the javascript undefined
17:25:01 <spectranaut_> mattking: if the value is not present
17:25:24 <spectranaut_> keithamus: the options of an attribute to have no state... so you don't have to use the terminology undefined, you can say "no state"
17:26:02 <spectranaut_> Rahim: I vague recall anne specified saying the name of the state, rather than no state
17:26:21 <spectranaut_> keithamus: maybe we can deviate from naming it the "undefined" state
17:26:47 <spectranaut_> keithamus: "empty state" maybe? indeterminate state?
17:27:03 <spectranaut_> Rahim: options: no state, indeterminate, undefined, empty
17:27:36 <spectranaut_> jcraig: this might expose an implementation detail... there is work that can only be done by core accessibility work of the engine, state could be determined by implementation....?
17:27:50 <smockle> q?
17:27:52 <spectranaut_> jcraig: reference there is more computation to be done before it can be determined
17:28:05 <spectranaut_> keithamus: we should have a discrete well named state
17:28:05 <smockle> q+
17:28:43 <spectranaut_> keithamus: ... something about firefox
17:29:28 <spectranaut_> Rahim: you never specify an undefined state, because these things map to the enumerated states
17:29:40 <jamesn> agenda?
17:29:41 <spectranaut_> keithamus: it is conceptually the no state
17:29:52 <jamesn> zakim, drop item 5
17:29:52 <Zakim> agendum 5, Any other issues?, dropped
17:29:57 <spectranaut_> keithamus: we have something that is either successfully parse as an enumerated attribute, or it is no state
17:30:18 <spectranaut_> Rahim: why in the html spec is this named sometimes, and other times different
17:30:28 <spectranaut_> Rahim: popover seems different
17:30:42 <spectranaut_> keithamus: algorithms that like to use that state within an algorithm
17:30:52 <spectranaut_> keithamus: you have to name it in order to refer to it
17:31:30 <spectranaut_> Rahim: aria-attributes... do they need to be reference by algorithms?
17:31:50 <jamesn> q?
17:31:54 <jamesn> ack smockle
17:32:16 <spectranaut_> smockle: I think indeterminate is bad because its used in aria spec for other reasons
17:32:25 <smockle> e.g. confusion with https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/input.html#dom-input-indeterminate
17:32:39 <spectranaut_> keithamus: if we don't want "no state", we could name it, we could skirt around some of the problems by explaining away from the name undefined state
17:33:27 <spectranaut_> Rahim: sounds like keeping it the undefined state is ok
17:33:31 <spectranaut_> keithamus: yeah
17:34:18 <spectranaut_> Rahim: sounds like there is more of a consensus for 3
17:34:37 <spectranaut_> Rahim: any objection?
17:34:56 <spectranaut_> Rahim: keeping the empty string is ok as well, it should be a valid key word.... that would be covered by special empty value default
17:35:03 <spectranaut_> Rahim: which luke will be adding
17:35:12 <spectranaut_> Rahim: sounds like agreement!
17:35:37 <spectranaut_> Rahim: jcraig you recommended a note....
17:35:53 <spectranaut_> jcraig: I've come around to keithamus suggestion of no state
17:36:30 <spectranaut_> Rahim: thanks everyone~!
17:36:43 <ChrisCuellar> ChrisCuellar has joined #aria
17:37:15 <Rahim> scribe: Rahim
17:37:18 <Rahim> zakim, next item
17:37:18 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- ariaNotify spec draft -- taken up [from jamesn]
17:37:34 <Jacques> https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/2577
17:38:04 <Rahim> Jacques: this can't merge until commitment from another browser. I wanted to get clarification on when I can consider this PR to be complete/approved
17:38:17 <Rahim> ...before shipping this in Chrome, wanted to get positive signal from ARIA WG
17:38:18 <Matt_King> Matt_King has joined #aria
17:38:27 <Rahim> ...would also gently request review
17:39:06 <spectranaut_> agenda?
17:39:10 <Rahim> jcraig: Rahim and I will discuss, and what screen reader changes would be needed. Will refresh myself on the details of this proposal
17:39:56 <Rahim> Jacques: also talked to Jamie Teh. Regarding implementations, this is working in the Origin Trial and working with all the major screen readers. Should also work today and if it doesn't, would be worth calling out
17:40:33 <Rahim> jamesn: rather than just relying on the browsers who need to look at this, should have someone from this group review it. Can I ask for some other people to look at this?
17:41:10 <Rahim> Matt_King: I may be able to review it (can't commit)
17:41:16 <Rahim> jamesn: any volunteers?
17:41:56 <Rahim> ...will assign myself, but will ask someone internally as well
17:42:24 <Rahim> Jacques: going back to my first question, will it be obvious to me that's we're OK and waiting on browser commitments?
17:43:02 <Rahim> ...we're wanting to ship this in Chrome/Edge but to ship in Chrome, we want positive signals from the ARIA WG
17:43:18 <Rahim> ...questions around why the spec draft hasn't been reviewed yet
17:43:27 <Rahim> spectranaut_: you can put me on the review as well
17:43:53 <Rahim> keithamus: maybe some GitHub staff members would like to review it?
17:44:15 <Rahim> Clay: not sure if my reviewing it would add necessary endorsement of it, curious about feedback from other folks
17:44:33 <Rahim> jamesn: we are supportive but if a signal is needed, we can review it and ensure it's in the state you like
17:44:47 <Rahim> sarah: I can review as well
17:45:58 <Rahim> jcraig: one thing that would be helpful, due to many aria notification/notify issues...there was an issue that cross-linked all aria notification issues? Anyone have that link?
17:46:12 <smockle> https://github.com/w3c/aria/discussions/1958
17:46:18 <Rahim> ....found it
17:46:45 <Rahim> Matt_King: (to jamesn) we can have non-members of the ARIA WG put reviews in?
17:47:05 <Rahim> jamesn: it's a public review, so they can comment (but if they comment positively, I can put it in from me)
17:47:09 <Rahim> zakim, next item
17:47:09 <Zakim> agendum 7 -- cross root ID references -- taken up [from jamesn]
17:47:34 <jamesn> Explainer:
17:47:34 <jamesn> https://github.com/WICG/webcomponents/blob/gh-pages/proposals/reference-target-explainer.md#reference-target-for-cross-root-aria
17:47:34 <jamesn> Recent Presentation:
17:47:34 <jamesn> https://alice.pages.igalia.com/2025-hackfest-reference-target/
17:47:35 <jamesn> (from https://github.com/Igalia/webengineshackfest/issues/54 )
17:47:35 <jamesn> Two ways to activate the Chromium flag for testing:
17:47:35 <jamesn> A) Enable the flag chrome://flags/#enable-experimental-web-platform-features and restart (this will also turn on other experimental stuff)
17:47:35 <jamesn> B) Launch the browser with the command-line flag --enable-blink-features=ShadowRootReferenceTarget
17:47:36 <jamesn> Intent to experiment thread with more background links:
17:47:36 <jamesn> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/C3pELgMqzCY/m/Lpb6DkueAQAJ
17:47:55 <spectranaut_> q+
17:48:53 <Rahim> spectranaut_: the explainer that is linked to (above) is a draft that reflects an opinion (Ellis') and feedback is welcome
17:49:02 <jamesn> ack spectranaut_
17:49:27 <Rahim> jamesn: this is the missing piece to implement web components accessibly, and will make our lives much easier and make possible what is not possible today
17:49:51 <spectranaut_> s/Ellis/Alice/
18:26:09 <ChrisCuellar> ChrisCuellar has joined #aria
20:58:30 <ChrisCuellar> ChrisCuellar has joined #aria
21:21:55 <spectranaut_> RRSAgent, make minutes
21:21:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/14-aria-minutes.html spectranaut_
21:22:08 <spectranaut_> zakim, end meeting
21:22:08 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been giacomo-petri, Adam_Page, smockle, filippo-zorzi, Rahim, spectranaut_, katez, sarah, cyns
21:22:10 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
21:22:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/14-aria-minutes.html Zakim
21:22:17 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, spectranaut_; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
21:22:18 <Zakim> Zakim has left #aria
22:22:12 <ChrisCuellar> ChrisCuellar has joined #aria
23:21:04 <ChrisCuellar> ChrisCuellar has joined #aria