W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2012

Re: HTML-A11Y Task Force Consensus on Issue-204 (Updated)

From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 16:16:40 -0400
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Frank Olivier <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120530201640.GB11252@sonata.rednote.net>
The WAI Protocols and Formats Working Group strongly objects to any RFC
2119 normative requirements on WAI-ARIA markup in HTML Working Group
specifications. Normative WAI-ARIA requirements are the chartered
responsibility of PF-WG and are out of scope for HTML-WG.  In other
words, "might" or "may" statements are acceptable, but "should" and
"must" statements are not.

Please note that PF-WG is not now objecting to, nor expressing a
judgement of the technical merit of the proposed language.  Rather, it
simply avers that the appropriate PF-WG locus of normative WAI-ARIA
requirements on user agents is its forthcoming publication, "WAI-ARIA
User Agent Implementation Guide (UAIG)."

http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-implementation/

Comments on the UAIG are welcome. Indeed, a (second) Last Call
announcement for the UAIG is expected in a few weeks.

Moreover, while the UAIG is a PF-WG publication, it is a named
deliverable of the joint PF-WG and HTML-WG  WAI-ARIA User Agent
Implementation Task Force

http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-ua-task-force

HTML-WG members are now, and have always been, most welcome to work with
PF-WG members on perfecting this document.

Janina

Jonas Sicking writes:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Jonas wrote:
> >> However I could easily have missed other implementor feedback. If
> >> that's the case a SHOULD level requirement might be ok.
> >
> > Cynthia wrote:
> >> We do want to leave the door open to further development on either
> >> accessibility tree or ui-based solutions, in the future, but don't
> >> feel that it's ready for a MUST requirement at this time. Personally,
> >> I'm not even sure about SHOULD, but am open to discussion on that
> >> point.
> >
> > OK, it sounds like you're both open to considering a SHOUD here.
> > Tangible progress!
> >
> > If we go with a SHOULD for this requirement, and update
> > AllowAriaReferHidden to match, do you think we could come to consensus
> > on that proposal?
> 
> I could live with a SHOULD level requirement (though as usual I only
> speak for me and not the rest of mozilla).
> 
> However I will note that even if we make it a MUST level requirement,
> the spec would only be able to go to Rec is there are two
> implementations of that requirement. Presumably those implementations
> have to be "good" implementations, and so would have to deal with the
> UI issues that Cynthia raises.
> 
> / Jonas

-- 

Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
			sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
		Email:	janina@rednote.net

The Linux Foundation
Chair, Open Accessibility:	http://a11y.org

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Chair,	Protocols & Formats	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
	Indie UI			http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2012 20:17:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:32 UTC