W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: feedback requested on WAI CG Consensus Resolutions on Text alternatives in HTML 5 document

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:17:41 -0700
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Message-id: <E7970F44-6630-4D26-9140-C73E0554BF7A@apple.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>

On Aug 18, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> As for whether we have an agreement in principle: I believe that we  
>> do not have one yet. First, the PFWG reps on the call were very  
>> clear that the ideas they described on host language semantics and  
>> ARIA were tentative. I believe all agreed that PFWG should put  
>> their thoughts on the record in email as the next step. Second, the  
>> PFWG reps on the call agreed that the comments about the role  
>> attribute were interesting, but did not state a position on whether  
>> ARIA would be changed to reflect them, though they did agree to  
>> take these comments back to PFWG. I believe once these two points  
>> are addressed, then we will in fact have an agreement in principle.  
>> Does your recollection differ from mine?
> What I want to do is to break the logjam of "I won't respond until  
> the other side puts their thoughts on the record".  I would like us  
> to proceed based on the premise of an agreement in principle, even  
> if it is subject to change.
> The following is draft thoughts, subject to change, and we have the  
> ability to influence these thoughts:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0962.html
> My recollection was that you thought this was sufficient, and upon  
> reading Michael's post, I found nothing that surprised me.  But I am  
> not as close to the problem as you are, let me know if you read this  
> differently.

I believe that email is sufficient to act on. I believe it is detailed  
enough to have all the info needed to draft the HTML5 text for  
integrating ARIA. I don't think it is reasonable to wait for an ARIA  
Editor's Draft given this info. (That being said, it can't hurt to  
also put it in the form of an Editor's Draft.)

> More immediately, the status of issue-35 (aria-processing) is open.  
> Cynthia Shelly had action 114 to get the PF working group to report  
> progress.  Unless I hear differently, I am going to assume that that  
> action is complete, and therefore want to know what the next action  
> is, who owns that action, and when it is due.
> Based on my (admittedly limited) understanding of the issue, a  
> reasonable next step is for somebody to draft a matrix of potential  
> combinations[1].  Even if some (or even many) of the squares in the  
> matrix are wrong, the exercise will be useful in that that should  
> spark useful discussion.

If Ian doesn't want to do it, I suggest that Henri Sivonen should make  
the first draft of such a matrix, since he's effectively already made  
one for the validator.nu HTML5+ARIA mode.

Received on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 18:18:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:49 UTC