minutes for ARIA Editors 2023-04-17

Hi everyone,

Below are my notes from Monday's meeting.

As per the call: please take another look at which parts of aria-common you
really need in your specs.

Best,
Peter.

# ARIA Editors meeting, 2023-04-17

Agenda

* "how to get rid of aria-common"
https://github.com/w3c/aria-common/issues/61.
* synchronize github actions across ARIA repositories. E.g., ARIA PR 1913
added an RFC-2119 checker that would be helpful elsewhere.

pkra: additional agenda items?
jemma: publishing schedule APG?
mattking: all good
daniel: blog post should be up

daniel: maybe talk about https://github.com/w3c/using-aria/issues/49
james: will put on agenda this week
... good parts should be digested into APG
... bad parts dropped
mattking: yes, digesting was on our roadmap
james: re-publishing seems weird without active maintainers and some
contradictiing language with current spec
... but if group wants, let's make it
mattking: good to discuss; I think it's very good timing to move this into
APG
james: then maybe consensu
daniel: maybe discuss
mattking: create issues for various items on APG
jemma: so using-aria becomes part of APG?
james: not as such but good part moved into APG
jemma: then deprecate?
james: yes, it doesn't belong to any group
mattking: webWG doesn't want it?
james: not sure; seems they don't want this anymore
jemma: using-aria is used a lot by users, can we talk to Shawn or someone
to coordinate communication?
mattking: since it's owned by web platforms WG, it's not so much "away" but
coordinationg with APG
... seems doable to do something sensible when all content is ready
pkra: we can redirect the spec to suitable places?
mattking: it's a note and we've done those in the past
james: it's technically a working draft that never got
jemma: it's used so much, we should be careful
pkra: we can re-use the terminology "using aria / rules of aria"
mattking: already part in APG, ever since 2020
james: it's fairly dogmatic, always difficult when it comes to edge cases
that needed to break
bryan: always felt that was a bit problematic

pkra: about https://github.com/w3c/aria-common/issues/61
... james started this 2 years ago
... me revisited 3 weeks ago
... 1. ack could move to aria repo?
james: not sure. really meant for respec
... of course it could pull in the main aria
matt: besides technical side, thinking about the contents
... for APG, the answer is not clear what we should be doing here
... hard to track contributions, not clear if it should / content policy
james: I spoke with Val about doing something different
... ack's is rather big; many names, some left years ago, some never
contributed directly
... there's issues filing / PR review, maybe that deserves credit
matt: more an issue for evergreen specs
... for versioned specs it's more relevant
... difficult to interpret
pkra: heretically: are github stats maybe enough?
james: there's https://respec.org/docs/#id-gh-contributors
daniel: yes, that would work
james: we should make sure that we cover pre-github work but we've been
here a long time
mattking: can it filter by date range etc?
james: any
mattking: alphabetical?
james: I think so. github user names
mattking: I'd want to be consistent in APG
james: right. maybe more difficult
Jemma: wcag has qualitative criteria for activity of member
... not sure if they have an automated process
... we may want to define that
james: we also don't want to spend too much time
... also, be careful of people's concerns
mattking: people can have different perspectives (performance review,
resume etc); it is an incentive

pkra: please @ all editors -- take another look?

james:aria child from aria/roleinfo
... generated, will be needed
... resolvereferences interspec linking
pkra: feels like roleInfo, aria-child should be a CI
james: well, has to be versioned
pkra: but could live in aria
james: utility.js does what??
pkra: aam author => maintainer wording
james: that should be doable on aam
pkra: I'll file issue
james: filtering github bots should be respec
jemma: what is mapping-tables.js?
pkra: in aam's does the huge table view siwtch
... only jcraig said he's using it
james: it's a bit complex but val is driving it
... but e.g., graphics-aam would have to keep it
pkra: but they keep a copy
james: biblio.js - is it still being used?
... it is but do we need it?
daniel: it is
james: we should update web ref  https://w3c.github.io/webref/
pkra: do we agree it should go?
james: either remove, inline or replace with better refs
daniel: https://www.specref.org/
jemma: graphics aam maintainers?
james: hopefully we can apply changes their, too

pkra: terms?
james: we shouldn't need it anymore
pkra: css
james: no need for aria-commons, just have to have it somewhere
... could help with pr previews
...  fixing PR previews  would be awesome
pkra: an we use aria-common as issue tracker for editorial topics?
james: yes!



Am Mo., 17. Apr. 2023 um 10:17 Uhr schrieb Daniel Montalvo <dmontalvo@w3.org
>:

> Thanks, Peter, for sending agenda.
>
>
>
> I’ve now confirmed the event (see separate confirmation email from W3C
> calendar).
>
>
>
> Best.
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Daniel Montalvo
>
> Accessibility Education and Training Specialist
>
> W3C/WAI
>
>
>
> *From:* Peter Krautzberger <peter@krautzource.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, April 17, 2023 10:11 AM
> *To:* ARIA Editors <public-aria-editors@w3.org>
> *Subject:* ARIA Editors 2023-04-17
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> Some agenda items for April 17. Please add more if you have them
>
>
>
> * "how to get rid of aria-common"
> https://github.com/w3c/aria-common/issues/61.
>
> * synchronize github actions across ARIA repositories. E.g., ARIA PR 1913
> added an RFC-2119 checker that would be helpful elsewhere.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Peter.
>