[Bug 25003] modify required heading mappings to reflect reality

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25003

--- Comment #26 from steve faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Jake Archibald from comment #24)
> steve faulkner:
> > The HTML5.0 CR spec is meant to reflect interoperable implementations
> 
> Ahh ok, but if outlining is dropped, then sectioning elements must also be
> dropped as they're part of that feature.

no, they have semantics (actually implemented see
http://www.html5accessibility.com/) that are independent of their use in the
outline algo. Also as stated, the algorithm is used by third party software
(there is a epub XSLT implementation for example)


>> we have already had to mitigate such evangelism in regards to use of <section> >>as a replacement for <div> by changing advice in the HTML spec :-)

>Then that was incorrect evangelism. It's certainly not what I teach or follow. >These kinds of errors will also happen. It happened with tables, it still >happens with dl & forms etc etc.

the HTML spec was unclear, it has been edited to make it clearer
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/sections.html#the-section-element

>Comment 15 shows this, right? Not all ATs will benefit, but some will. And if >ATs are struggling with the algorithm, they'll be able to avoid creating a buggy >implementation and use the acc layer instead.

>From what Marco has stated the only AT to benefit would be VoiceOver as at is
the only AT (I know) that uses the platform acc APIs exclusively. Suggest
re-reading Comment 15  

"The other one is the exposure via what we call ISImpleDOM, which is the method
used by JAWS, Window-Eyes, and even NVDA in IE (all versions), and by JAWS and
WE at least in Firefox, and it basically means that screen readers do their own
HTML interpretation and only use MSAA as sort of a basic pointer mechanism.
While, in theory, the exposure could be governed by the browser through
mechanism one, and screen readers like NVDA, Orca, Firefox OS and Firefox for
Android, would immediately get it, everyone using method 2 would have to
implement the algorithm themselves to deal with the spec"

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2014 16:10:17 UTC