Re: Report on event listener investigation

Just to clarify ...

I don't see any proposal to circumvent anything or anyone. Your use of
that term is unfortunate, imo, and we should recognize this up front.
I'm sure it was simply written in haste.

I see Shane's email discussing various documented, legitimate
approaches. Extension specs are one such approach agreed by consensus of
the HTML-WG as part of Plan 2014. It's not circumvention to suggest PF
might want to propose moving forward via an extension specification.
Clearly, also by agreement with the HTML-WG, we would do so via the
HTML-A11Y TF, as indeed we would were we to seek to impact the dom spec
directly. In fact, starting with an extension is one path blessed in
Plan 2014 for affecting the primary specification. Keeping the extension
spec spearate is an independent process decision that the HTML-WG would
still need to accept.

So, this is discussion of available options, not a call to
circumvention.

hth

Janina

James Craig writes:
> On Aug 27, 2014, at 5:44 AM, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> wrote:
> 
> > Alternately, we could run the proposal through the HTML working group's DOM team.  There is clearly some opposition to this in the community, and we might run into that opposition harder there than if we just did it ourselves.  
> 
> I do not recommend PFWG circumventing the DOM groups on any issue that is not accessibility-specific. Instead, it’d be better to look into the reasons a listeners API was dismissed previously, and critically question whether another attempt is worthwhile.
> 
> James
> 

-- 

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

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup: 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, 27 August 2014 18:03:31 UTC