W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Revert request for r5981, and moving forward on ISSUE-129

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:58:24 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTikJ_ydE=uxoAvBC3=aOgEp+t8fbNA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, public-html-request@w3.org, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
It was not expected or aksed that the whole text be copied, it was
where something had been inserted or deleted, every thing else was as
it was from the revision of the spec I copied it from

as it said in the original email:

"> A copy of the aria section revision 1.4093. with the required changes:
>
> the required changes are in the 2 data tables.
> each deletion and insertion is marked using the <ins> and <del> elements."

nothing else was changed from the revision.

so what are the mistakes?

regards
stevef



On 12 April 2011 22:52, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> On Apr 12, 2011, at 1:09 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I have provided am updated set of spec changes for review by the working
>> >> group: http://www.html5accessibility.com/tests/aria-changesv2.html
>> >
>> > This does not accurately reflect the decision. If we're going to correct
>> > the mistakes in the decision, we should correct all of them, not just the
>> > ones you want to correct.
>> >
>> > Maciej suggested that instead we should apply the decision as the chairs
>> > made it, and then file bugs to address the issues arising. I suggest we
>> > follow his advice instead of trying to fix the mistakes here.
>>
>> Ian, can you identify which aspects of this proposed text do not
>> correctly reflect the decision?
>
> It's hard to say exactly given that this is presented as an HTML file and
> not a diff, but for example it seems to remove the <base>, <details>,
> <head>, and <html> elements from the first table (amongst others), it
> change the requirements for <input type=checkbox> controls in a way that
> has no bearing on the decision, it lists roles for <hx> elements that the
> decision does not allow, it forces radio buttons to not be
> menuitemradios... In general there's all kinds of changes in this table
> that have nothing to do with the decision.
>
> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>



-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2011 21:59:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:28 GMT