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

Re: Please put in interim text for the ISSUE-204 statement about exposing semantics of hidden content

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:41:49 -0700
Cc: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>, public-html@w3.org
Message-id: <CFA53B2E-7D3C-41E8-AE7D-3B55B674F23D@apple.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>

I think that's a good thought. But (speaking with my implementor hat and not my chair hat) I would also say that it's an acceptable answer to update the spec once it is actually true that "a sizable portion of UAs have implemented the ability to expose the full semantic content to users". As long as we are committed to frequent spec updates, I don't think this will be a problem. That being said, if we could get suitable consensus text along these lines, I would not object to that either. Do you have a specific suggestion?

Cheers,
Maciej


On Sep 12, 2012, at 2:25 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> In the following paragraph:
> 
> "Because historically some User Agents have flattened hidden content
> when exposing such content to Assistive Technology, authors should not
> reference hidden content which would lose essential meaning when
> flattened."
> 
> Could we at least add language saying that this is only applicable
> until a sizable portion of UAs have implemented the ability to expose
> the full semantic content to users.
> 
> Otherwise we'll be making poor recommendations, which is exactly what
> that sentence is trying to avoid doing.
> 
> / Jonas
> 
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com> wrote:
>> Hi Maciej,
>> 
>> You wrote:
>> 
>>> Therefore, we request that the HTML5 Editors (most likely Ted) apply the
>>> text identified in the following email as soon as possible:
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0169.html
>> 
>> Done, in ca896aa:
>> 
>> https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/ca896aab1f7a3ad54b36721c6a32da5cf243d65f
>> 
>> I should note that the wording is slightly different than in email 169.
>> I tweaked the positive and negative examples based on Leif's latest
>> message. (Thanks, Leif!)
>> 
>> Following the above commit, I have resolved the following bugs as FIXED:
>> 
>> * Bug 18793: Remove Sentence as requested by Formal Objection on HTML
>>  Issue-204 Decision
>> 
>>  The sentence has been removed.
>> 
>> * Bug 18744: drop WAI-ARIA scope restriction in the text adopted in
>>  ISSUE-204
>> 
>>  The new text removes the WAI-ARIA scope restriction that was present
>>  in the old text.
>> 
>> * Bug 18745: Reword text adopted by ISSUE-204 to avoid certain implications
>> 
>>  The new, expanded text goes to great lengths to avoid the implications
>>  of the old text.
>> 
>> * Bug 18859: Update spec to match latest ISSUE-204 wording
>> 
>>  This was just a work-item bug to capture this specific spec edit.
>> 
>> As we continue to work on this issue, let's file specific bugs to
>> capture the remaining problems people have with this text.
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Ted
>> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2012 21:42:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 12 September 2012 21:42:15 GMT