– DRAFT –
ARIA Editors

Manual publication of SVG-AAM Working Draft https://github.com/w3c/svg-aam/issues/41

Daniel: just an update. New editors working on new draft. It turned out it wasn't yet integrated into ARIA WG so we'd have to publish manually.
… I think we have a blanket approval from the WG to publish AAMs.
… but I wanted to check with the editors.

cyns: sounds very good.

Daniel: great. I'll do it in the next days/weeks/eras.

cyns: should we add a note on the state of things?

Daniel: makes sense. Maybe post to the issue? I'll integrate it.

follow up to "Using ARIA" status" https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2708

Daniel: Currently discussing with Steve. Options we have are:
… - WG agrees on taking this up again, but we'd have to wait until the next Charter period, because Using ARIA is currently not included
… - Discontinue the Using ARIA working Draft and improve the ARIA Rules in APG, which is mainly what Steve wants to keep for historical purposes.
… of a discontinued draft

pkra: I wanted to check on this.

Daniel: discussed this some more. we could pick it up in our next charter, i.e. 2027
… would stay in working draft. Alternatively it could be marked as discontinued.

Rahim_: what's the history here?

Daniel: started way back when, before html semantics was as settled as it is today.
… Steve agreed that other resources deal with it nowadays.

mattking: and APG didn't really exist.

pkra: idea from scott was to invite Steve to a meeting

Daniel: of course.

mattking: should the options be recorded in the issue?

Daniel: makes sense.

mattking: I think that would be good.

<Daniel> https://www.htmhell.dev/adventcalendar/2025/10/

pkra: I would second Scott's point that we should meet up with Steve to hear what his plans might be.

daniel: here's link to an article from Steve on the history.

Should we merge issue trackers? (no tracking issue yet)

pkra: I was wondering if we wanted to reconsider this again

mattking: wasn't there a technical reason, e.g. issue history?

Daniel: Depending on what we decide, we may need to change the approach at speced/respec#5100. This assumes we are keeping the child repos and we're using them in respec boilerplate, and only changing pulls and commits URLs. But if we're to track all issues on the monorepo, then we need to probably tweak respec further to allow us to define custom "open issues.

pkra: right. I thought we could revisit. We had duplication again recently. I find the disconnect between PR and issue difficult.

mattking: find it useful to not follow everything.

mattgarish: reversely, allows just following e.g. dpub-aria

Daniel: I'm leaving a comment from the monorepo in the minutes

pkra: great. then it sounds like we want to keep things as is.

dpub proposal

daniel: any updates on the explainer?

mattgarish: not yet.

<Daniel> whatwg/html#11921

mattgarish: fyi this might be relevant soon whatwg/html#11921

CSS AAM update

Rahim_: curious if there was an update already?

Daniel: not much yet.
… some technical bits to be resolved (like biblio.js)

pkra: I thought we didn't need this anymore.

Daniel: right. apparently the editors thinks they do.