- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 13:48:10 +0200
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: Casey Callaghan <caseyc37@gmail.com>, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, TimBerners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>, "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
Steve Faulkner, Sat, 1 Jun 2013 11:33:24 +0100: > A sentence or two does not make it an implementation requirement for HTML5 That depends on the sentence. > Which of the other separate specs being developed by the HTML > working group are required to be implemented by user agents for > HTML5? ARIA is not developed by the HTML Working Group, but I don’t think that is important: [1] “Authors may use the ARIA role and aria-* attributes on HTML elements, in accordance with the requirements described in the ARIA specifications” I am just advocating a (IMO) more nuanced view on whether it matter if EME is included in the main spec, or not. That’s all. Hypothetic: With regard to your claim that there would not be agreement to include EME in the main spec, perhaps that’s a reason to include it - because it then would be turned into something agreeable. [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/dom.html#wai-aria -- leif halvard silli
Received on Saturday, 1 June 2013 11:48:40 UTC