James Craig
James Craig
@scottaohara was not able to make the meeting, but expressed some concern about the conclusion afterwards. He and I will meet tomorrow to discuss, and I'll share another update.
Instead of waiting to merge, perhaps the ARIA and AccName changes could merge with flags such as "waiting on implementations" and "waiting on tests"... Then we could use the spec...
I recall @aleventhal may have raised a similar point of confusion at TPAC 2023 in Seville.
I'm not sure how either could solve the current problem. For example, I assume either of your options would end up as: 1. [x] the ARIA spec change is written...
APG is downstream but not a dependency like the other issues. Still, it’s good to have it in the list as a reminder to file the trackers within the main...
Discussed in the Oct 2 ARIA WG meeting... ARIA Editors are discussing moving the source of the main specs (ARIA, Core-AAM, AccName, and maybe HTML-AAM) back into the ARIA repo,...
@spectranaut note the PR Previews say: > Do not attempt to implement this version of the specification. Do not reference this version as authoritative in any way. Instead, see [Editor's...
Even if the cross-spec links don't work, there's still utility in having related cross-spec changes go into a single PR.
@spectranaut wrote: > Although personally, I think it still might benefit us to have a mono repo. I agree.
Overcome by https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/2326