How to learn from progress in tools?

[WilcoFiers]

Issue #1540 got me thinking about keeping rules in sync with implementations. This problem was raised in axe-core way back when we first implemented that rule. We had it fixed in the next release, but that info never made it back to the CG, and into the rule.

I have tried to pay attention to this a little, that as I make changes to our tool, I raise issues on ACT. But I haven't done this very consistently, and I suspect others haven't either. So I would like to have a broader conversation to discuss if we might be able to come up with a process that lets us more consistently find out about fixes to rules that were adopted by implementors and either decide if we want them in ACT, or decide if we think that justifies classifying the implementation as a partial implementation.

[EmmaJP]

Does the documentation for those submitting implementations direct them to the info on giving feedback?

Also, the 'Give Feedback' page still has a bunch of 'To learn more about...' links that have yet to go anywhere. All marked (TBD).

[WilcoFiers]

TODO: We need to better document that we expect implementors to provide information about false positives they find in ACT rule implementations.

[carlosapaduarte]

@WilcoFiers is this been taking care of in the new website?

[WilcoFiers]

@carlosapaduarte What I recall from this is that we don't really know how to do this consistently. Best that can be done is probably just to regularly ask implementors about this.