W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > June 2012

Re: FW: Update to ARIA processing change proposal ISSUE-199

From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:16:27 -0400
Message-ID: <4FEA26AB.7010708@w3.org>
To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
CC: "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
To avoid cross-posting, I did not include the task force mailing list,
but have replied on this thread at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Jun/0131.html. Michael

Paul Cotton wrote:
>
> Resending with Michael Cooper in the To: field and the A11Y TF in the
> CC: field.  I recommend that discussion take place on the
> public-html@w3.org <mailto:public-html@w3.org> email at:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Jun/0112.html
>
>  
>
> /paulc
>
>  
>
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
>
> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
>
> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>
>  
>
> *From:* Edward O'Connor [mailto:eoconnor@apple.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 22, 2012 9:00 PM
> *To:* HTML WG
> *Subject:* Re: Update to ARIA processing change proposal ISSUE-199
>
>  
>
> Hi,
>
>  
>
> Michael Cooper wrote:
>
>  
>
>     I have updated the ISSUE-199 Change Proposal on ARIA processing,
>     following guidance from the 3 May 2012 discussion and
>     incorporating much of Ted O'Connor's counter proposal. I believe
>     this version covers the agreement of that meeting. Some details of
>     HTML-style spec language may need to be tweaked.
>
>     http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ARIA_Processing
>
>  
>
> This revised proposal is definitely much closer to something that I
> think we could find consensus on. Some notes:
>
>  
>
> There's no rationale provided for the changes proposed in the section
> titled "Clarify the existing ARIA section." As the change appears
> entirely editorial, I'd rather we leave it out of a consensus proposal.
>
>  
>
> The text of the "Role attribute" section closely matches the text of
> my proposal. There are two differences:
>
>  
>
> 1. The proposed spec section is titled "Role Attribute," whereas in my
> proposal it's titled "The ARIA role attribute." Because of the
> historical origins of the name of WAI-ARIA's role="" attribute in the
> XHTML Role Attribute Module, I think it's helpful to consistently
> refer to the attribute in spec text as "the ARIA role attribute" to
> avoid the implication that the attribute is intended as a generalized
> vehicle with which to imbue elements with additional semantics.
>
>  
>
> 2. The "split on spaces" paragraph isn't marked as an implementor-only
> section. It probably should be, but I doubt this is an area of
> intentional disagreement.
>
>  
>
> In terms of normative statements, I have no objection to the text in
> the section titled "State and Property Attributes." That said, I find
> this text hard to understand, so I would prefer a consensus proposal
> describe the normative requirements and defer to the editor for the
> precise wordsmithing.
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ted
>

-- 

Michael Cooper
Web Accessibility Specialist
World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative
E-mail cooper@w3.org <mailto:cooper@w3.org>
Information Page <http://www.w3.org/People/cooper/>
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 21:17:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:28 UTC