17:02:42 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #aria-editors
17:02:47 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/05/13-aria-editors-irc
17:02:47 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
17:02:48 <Zakim> Meeting: ARIA Editors
17:02:48 <spectranaut_> spectranaut_ has joined #aria-editors
17:02:48 <pkra> present+
17:02:50 <pkra> scribe+
17:03:23 <pkra> agenda?
17:03:33 <pkra> topic: Branching best practices
17:06:26 <pkra> pkra: somebody created this draft item. Not sure who and why.
17:08:09 <pkra> spectranaut_: maybe we created this during a meeting? E.g. about not forking (for WG members)
17:08:17 <pkra> pkra: ok. Then let's delete. Hopefully we'll remember.
17:08:56 <pkra> topic: [aria.js] generate roleInfo after respec runs (aria #2769)
17:09:09 <pkra> pkra: just wanted to touch base.
17:12:20 <pkra> ... I felt this was cleaner, even if it duplicates some things.
17:12:43 <pkra> spectranaut_: will it add extra work to change things on both end?
17:15:44 <pkra> pkra: right. Potentially, yes. But I'd hope it would be 2 changes in aria.js vs 1 in each.
17:15:54 <pkra> ... long term, I'd hope to remove as much as possible from aria.js
17:16:05 <pkra> spectranaut_: right. It is already easier to reason about.
17:16:16 <pkra> Rahim_: would it be possible to generated from the IDL block?
17:17:40 <pkra> ... generate the characteristics tables
17:18:00 <pkra> pkra: sure. Feels like it should be the other way around though since the IDL block is informative.
17:19:54 <spectranaut_> https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/2484
17:20:02 <pkra> topic: IDL PR 2484
17:24:09 <pkra> spectranaut_: preview is not working. Maybe because of a fork.
17:24:43 <pkra> pkra: I'm always in favor of avoiding manual duplication. But perhaps let's get it merged first, since it's been sitting for so long.
17:25:01 <pkra> Rahim_: right. Thinking about it because there are new values on the IDL side.
17:25:12 <pkra> spectranaut_: should we review this?
17:25:36 <pkra> Rahim_: not right now. I need to update it. And we should touch base with the salesforce people.
17:25:56 <pkra> spectranaut_: right. we also need to work out what to return for the getAccessibilityProperties.
17:26:07 <pkra> ... now that I work on it, I have a better understanding of the subtleties.
17:28:32 <pkra> topic: Add support for role-namerequired-caveat (aria #2781)
17:28:40 <pkra> pkra: link is https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/2781
17:29:30 <pkra> ... this issue is https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2767
17:29:43 <pkra> ... but really https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2671
17:33:59 <pkra> ... I'm not worried about the roleInfo implementation but the problem of conditionals in general.
17:34:40 <pkra> ... are we creating an uncontrolled set of conditions that implementors will struggle to follow?
17:35:38 <pkra> scotto: I initiated some work to remove some of these. E.g. required names when HTML's equivalent does not.
17:36:13 <pkra> ... we have requirements that stem from accessibility considerations that fit better elsewhere.
17:36:28 <pkra> ... e.g. the listbox case.
17:36:41 <pkra> ... we did some of that in html-aria, too.
17:37:21 <pkra> ... the bigger question is whether we work against other specs.
17:38:57 <pkra> spectranaut_: I feel that if the exemptions are programmatically detectable, then at least we enable checkers to do it.
17:42:47 <pkra> pkra: I'm more worried about creating a kind of spaghetti code situation where more and more conditionals are combined to make a tangled mess.
17:44:04 <pkra> scott: maybe more complex conditionals could be resolved by creating new roles which would integrate those.
17:45:23 <pkra> pkra: that's a great point. At least one way out.
17:45:55 <pkra> spectranaut_: I'm not sure how helpful it would be to have more roles that do essentially the same.
17:46:29 <pkra> scott: e.g. sectionheader/footer. These are basically group's. But it helps with authoring.
17:47:02 <pkra> ... it would simplify mappings but no difficulty in implementations.
17:47:37 <pkra> spectranaut_: you could almost say that the conditionals change the role under the hood.
17:47:49 <pkra> scott: right. sort of like a base role.
17:48:13 <pkra> ... it helps with authoring requirements.
17:50:49 <pkra> ... I'm not sure if it's much easier for authors. They'll have to learn it either way.
17:51:04 <pkra> pkra: aside, I had to think about the DPUB aria roles, both as pro and con.
17:51:35 <pkra> scott: this was just the first idea I had. I think we should think more about it to make sure we have more options.
17:52:05 <pkra> ... I don't think we're having problems with the current proposals but I agree that it would be good for the WG to think about options in the longterm.
17:54:33 <pkra> pkra: thanks everyone for indulging this topic.
17:57:54 <pkra> zakim, end meeting
17:57:54 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been pkra
17:57:55 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
17:57:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/05/13-aria-editors-minutes.html Zakim
17:58:04 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, pkra; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:58:04 <Zakim> Zakim has left #aria-editors