-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 266
2024‐04‐19
Attending (11): Michael Gower, Alastair Campbell, Bruce Bailey, Patrick Lauke, Avon Kuo, Francis Storr, Giacomo Petri, Gundula Neiman, Mike Gifford, Dan Bjorge, Marco Sabidussi, Lori Oakley.
Regrets: Scott O'Hara
Next week we review items sent for approval and start on new drafted items.
Mike provided overview of updates to TF process and Closing issues directly in particular. Feedback welcome. Bias is towards closing items and facilitators want TF members to be empowered, while retaining tracking, visibility, and quality assurance.
Behavior of project board favors linking PRs but we have issues which are Response only. If you see an issue which can be closed, please see Process for suggested phrasing.
Discussed Errata changes. Errata can be editorial or substantive, and three classes of changes. We are mostly focused on informative documents which are not required through CFC process.
Some interested in republishing TR track documents yearly. To date, only republished doc is 2.1 in September 2023.
On call, TF did not have consensus on "It follows, then, that editorial errata (everything on the first row) can and should be immediately incorporated into the standard without an updated version date."
Historically, AG chairs minimize CFC so non-substantive errata can get bundled.
Scottt has lead with a draft and asks to postpone.
We have a dozen items for approval by AG, due 4/29. Focus next week will use For Discussion column for feedback from AG.
-
Aligned WCAG 2.2 with WCAG 2.1 - 2.5.5 Target Size (Enhanced) Understanding Doc (missing examples) #3638 good feedback and Giacomo will follow up with DetLev.
-
Update ARIA12 #3734 benefited from feedback but has changed enough. Moved back to In Discussion.
None moved to Ready for approval, since there was not general agreement the issue is sufficiently resolved.
Discussion was not concluded with consensus.
- Mark input purposes list as non-normative #3778 will require CFC regardless. WCAG 2.0 has Glossary explicitly labeled as an Appendix but also normative. WCAG 2.1 (and 2.2) has a different pattern, dropping the word appendices, but using appendix style formatting for A, B, C. Could be two changes, easier lift to put "appendix" in front of B Acknowledgments and C References.
- Update F73 to remove example 2 #3743 Francis walked through and highlighted changes. Change harmonizes allowing contrast changes on hover to not be a failure, consistent with other Understanding documents. TF does not have consensus, example needs to be added. Patrick and Francis will revisit.