On the 7 Feb, 2019 call I mentioned I'd add examples of HTML expectations for the time element so we can work out the open questions on the PR. They are:

a) Author provides a machine-readable datetime content attribute on the <time> element, and is then free to provide human-readable (for example) child phrasing contents of the element:

<time datetime="2011-02-07">
  <span>Today's conference call</span>
</time>

b) Author does not use the datetime content attribute, and the <time> element must not have element descendants, as the text contents themselves are meant to be used for the human-readable format:

<time>2011-02-07</time>

Questions we discussed for PR #895:

• Added an author should to match the content expectations of HTML. Should this really be a SHOULD, since that'll generate implications for compliance checkers, or should we change to a gentler suggestion? I don't believe we got formal resolution on this but we can review the next call this comes up.
• Didn't mark this as "children presentational" but perhaps it should be, given HTML expectations: "A time element that does not have a datetime content attribute must not have any element descendants." Now I don't think we need to do this, given that we are adding the aria-datetime attribute and in my opinion it would be potentially unnecessarily complex to have different presentational rules with or without the attribute.
• For the role parity exercise, do we need something like aria-datetime? We determined that we do; Need an aria-datetime attribute for parity with HTML datetime attr #898

@jnurthen is there a preferred way to notify the group/chairs that PR changes are in and ready to review at an upcoming call? (This is also me notifying that #895 has been updated!)

Changes made, for call reference:

• Added note about potential future aria-datetime property
• Added valid date- and time- strings inline and removed normative reference to the HTML spec for this purpose; I added one example per category. The HTML spec is much more exhaustive, open to adding all of them if requested, but hopefully this a good set to get the point across
• Documented the HTML expectations for <time> element authoring, in a comment earlier in this issue thread. This is for reference as to whether children should be presentational or not.
• Also removed name from contents

@melanierichards I think adding the label "agenda" to the issue is enough.

Adding Agenda can work but an email is also good.... We review everything with Agenda on it during out planning meeting on Tuesdays so if it has Agenda before then it will be considered. Apologies for not putting this on earlier though.

@jnurthen you didn't miss it, it just took me forever to cycle back and make the changes 😅 Email to chairs or to the group?

@melanierichards up to you... We will see it either way. Also when the agenda goes out if something isn't on it which you think should be please let me know.

The ARIA Working Group just discussed placeholder.