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

Re: [HTMLWG] CR Exit Criteria redux

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 17:50:24 -0700
Cc: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <A183F2D0-0155-44A2-8A25-D5F5866D320B@apple.com>
To: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>

On Sep 26, 2012, at 5:27 PM, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 2:28 PM, John Foliot wrote:
>> Adrian Bateman wrote:
>>> It is unacceptable to Microsoft that anyone other than Microsoft 
>>> submit implementation reports for Internet Explorer.
>> 
>> Would browser vendors and other interested parties accept that as part of
>> any implementation claim they specifically note Accessibility considerations
>> when relevant?  For example, stating as part of any claim *what* (if
>> anything) is being exposed to the Accessibility API, (along with possibly
>> known 3rd party implementations).
>> 
>> For example, feature "foo" has been implemented in 2 independent instances,
>> and as part of that implementation "bar" is exposed to the AAPI, but no 3rd
>> party (AT) tool yet supports that feature/exposure. Does it meet the Exit
>> Criteria test? (If an inspector can verify the claims of AAPI exposure, does
>> that count?)
>> 
>> Conversely, feature "baz" is exposed to the AAPI, is supported by X number
>> of known AT tools, but has no native implementation in the browser - does
>> that count and who reports it?
> 
> Do you have an example test case? I would expect that we would submit an
> implementation report for all the test cases that we're able to run. I'm not
> sure what a test case for this kind of feature would look like so it would
> be good to see some proposals for this kind of test if they will be needed.

I imagine this would be a manual test case where you load an HTML file in a particular browser with a particular screen reader running, and observe behavior via a third party screen reader (say, JAWS). I don't think anyone has made such a test.


Additional question: has Microsoft asked for or received the concession requested here from other W3C Working Groups, i.e. that only only Microsoft is allowed to submit implementation reports for IE?

Also: what is the concern behind this? 
    (1) Are you worried that someone else will run the tests and incorrectly conclude that IE has a quality implementation of a feature, when Microsoft does not feel that way and in fact it should be removed?
    (2) Are you worried that someone else will run the tests and conclude that IE is not as compliant as Microsoft feels it is, leading to an undeserved bad reputation?
    (3) Something else - if so, what?

It is difficult to figure out what kinds of remedies might address your concerns without understanding what they are.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 00:50:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 27 September 2012 00:50:57 GMT