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

Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-129 aria-mapping

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 11:37:35 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTikK=kge41ckCAFKiuKCPxCvK0FNHeTROVhYFkb0@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>
Hi sam,thank you for the clarification:

In regards to hgroup and headings it may contain, the spec is conradictory,
so until that is resolved I would suggest implementors refrain from
implementing it.

This may well become a moot point if hgroup is modified or removed during
last call.

>While I haven't carefully double checked this list, it does match my
recollection.

it would be good to get confirmation from the chairs on what needs to be
changed.


regards
stevef


On 1 March 2011 11:23, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> On 03/01/2011 04:31 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>
>> Thanks to the cahirs for providing decisions on the issues.
>>
>> comments/questions:
>>
>> On hgroup; currently the spec says that the hrgoup must have a
>>
>> "|heading| role, with the |aria-level| property set to the element's
>> outline depth <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/semantics.html#outline-depth
>> >"
>>
>>
>> While headings inside hgroup are can have ANY role.
>>
>> the chairs decision disallows:
>>
>> " Any changes to how <hgroup> elements are to be interpreted, or how
>>    headings contained within such an <hgroup> are to be interpreted."
>>
>> Which means what is currently in the spec stays.
>>
>> How does that accord with the Chairs statement in regards to hgroup:
>>
>> "As such, we find that there is no consensus as of yet as to
>> what this element means, and don't wish for this decision to preclude
>> any possibility as of yet."
>>
>> If there is no consensus on the current spec text, will it require that
>> this is resolved prior to last call?
>>
>
> We did discuss this.  Short answer: we treated it as "no proposal was made
> in the time allowed; this portion of the change was closed without
> prejudice".
>
> Longer answer:
>
> In the context of the W3C consensus doesn't mean unanimity.  As an example,
> there clearly is disagreement over the default role for img elements, but as
> objections were made that were not countered despite everybody being given
> ample opportunity to do so, we included that change in the decision.
>
> In the case of the proposes hgroup change, there is a dispute over what the
> intended semantics of this element is.  Instead of making the case for what
> the intended semantics of this element should be, what we see is a concrete
> proposal with the unsupported assertion that it "better matches the
> semantics that hgroup is intended to convey".
>
> As the proposal lacked this important aspect, we decided to encourage the
> discussion to continue via bug reports.  If amicable consensus can be
> reached: great.  Otherwise, you are correct that we will not require bug
> reports entered at this time to be resolved before proceeding to Last Call.
>
> I'll add as a personal note that I wish it were otherwise.  I encourage
> people to submit full and complete Change Proposals.  I believe that we have
> given everybody ample time to do so.  Additionally, I believe that this
> proposal could have benefited by being addressed as a series of smaller
> proposals, something that was encouraged multiple times. However, as there
> seemed to be an insistence to pursue it as a single proposal we allowed it
> to proceed in such a manner.
>
>
>  If there is no consensus why leave the current text as is, where
>> implementors may well assume that hgroup is to be mapped as specified?
>>
>
> If a bug results in an issue, the list of open issues will be forwarded
> along with the Last Call draft.  I'll add that the purpose of Last Call is
> to solicit input, not to state "this is final".
>
>
>  Just to clarify, from my reading of the decision thes are the changes
>> that need to be applied to the HTML5 spec:
>>
>>    * *button element, input type="image", input type=button*: allowed
>>      roles: button, link, menuitem, menuitemcheckbox,
>>      menuitemradio,presentation, radio
>>    * *h1 to h6 element that does have an hgroup ancestor*: no change
>>    * *hgroup element*: no change
>>    * *a element that represents a hyperlink* allowed roles: button,
>>      checkbox, link, menuitem, menuitemcheckbox, menuitemradio,
>>      presentation, tab, or treeitem.
>>    * *img element that does not have an empty alt attribute*: default
>>      role of img. allowed roles: any
>>    * *H1 to H6* allowed roles:  link, menuitem, menuitemcheckbox,
>>      menuitemradio,  presentation, tab or treeitem.
>>
>
> While I haven't carefully double checked this list, it does match my
> recollection.
>
>  Regards
>> Stevef
>>
>
> - Sam Ruby
>



-- 
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, 1 March 2011 11:38:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:23 GMT