- From: Matt King <a11ythinker@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 09:53:55 -0700
- To: "'Peter Krautzberger'" <peter@krautzource.com>, "'Valerie Young'" <spectranaut@igalia.com>
- Cc: <public-aria-editors@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <05d101d97604$311d97b0$9358c710$@gmail.com>
Peter, I’d like to keep the page: “Resolving ARIA 1.1 Combobox Issues” Someplace accessible. It is an important record of considerations that we still sometimes need to reference. Given the speed at which the web platform moves, I don’t see that need going away in the next 5+ years. I am willing to move the combobox content to a gist in my GitHub account if there are good reasons for removing it from the wiki. However, I feel it is more appropriate to keep it in the wiki. Another option is moving it into a closed issue. That seems a little weird, but again is better than deleting and reasonable if there is a sound rationale. It is weird in that it would have a high issue number and the presentation of content and heading structure doesn’t fit well in an issue -- it is written as a document. I don’t see any harm leaving it where it is in the wiki. Leaving it in place has the advantage that the links in the old working drafts of the specs will not break. The drafts stay in TR, so breaking the links is probably not a good idea. That brings up two related questions: 1. Why are the editor’s notes still in the 1.2 document? Weren’t they supposed to be removed at CR exit? 2. Respec is still giving the Notes the wrong heading level. Can someone remind me where the issue for that is? I’d like to see if we can get that fixed. Seems like a simple issue that should have been resolved by now. Matt From: Peter Krautzberger <peter@krautzource.com> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 3:11 AM To: Valerie Young <spectranaut@igalia.com> Cc: public-aria-editors@w3.org Subject: Re: wiki in the ARIA repository Thanks, Valerie! Before yesterday's meeting, James had some interest in keeping archival copies for interested people. I'm of two minds here; I think archives are important but I also think it can be problematic to have outdated, official looking documents around. But maybe in practice it's not a big deal -- most wiki pages have moved into the spec (e.g., 1.2 and 1.3 planning, annotation draft). @james can you take a look at what documents you'd find of interest to keep? The pages that struck me as still interesting: css-aam, non-modal dialogs, attribute parity, test separation. Best, Peter. Am Do., 20. Apr. 2023 um 22:25 Uhr schrieb Valerie Young <spectranaut@igalia.com <mailto:spectranaut@igalia.com> >: Hey Peter, I deleted the pages I moved to the "documentation" folder and update the links on the main wiki page to point to the documentation folder instead of the (now deleted) wiki pages. Also I found another documentation like page and deleted it, as everything was covered. Also I noticed there was an IRC cheat cheat being pointed to and move that document, see: https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1920 Every other page (except the ARIA F2F page) I have no opinion on! Val On 4/20/23 01:38, Peter Krautzberger wrote: > Hi editors, > > I was looking at https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1882 again today. > > I believe we decided that all stale wiki pages can be deleted and all > long term documents would move to the folder "documentation" in the > main repository. > > I checked that the git repository will keep deleted pages safe in its > history - but there's no UI for looking up deleted pages. > > Could everyone please take a quick look if you have anything you want > to move to the documentation folder? In that case, please add a > comment to a page that you want to preserve. > > If I don't hear anything, I'll start deleting pages. > > Best, > Peter.
Received on Sunday, 23 April 2023 16:54:09 UTC