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 23:00:40 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTiki+Y=7zTSDwzcua-SomztXtoXzvQ@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>
link for text cited
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0067.html

On 12 April 2011 22:58, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>



-- 
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 22:25:15 GMT

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