Re: [REVIEW REQUESTED] Action-1548: Updating the note text for aria-current

Thank you, Joanie. It's much better. Nevertheless wouldn't it be reasonable
to let UAIG to handle that instead? In that case, the browser would expose
the value the author provided.

Thanks again.
Alex.

[1]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-implementation/#document-handling_author-errors

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs@igalia.com> wrote:

> Hey Alex.
>
> I myself don't see your proposal as particularly unreasonable, and
> unstable branch is unstable. So....
> https://github.com/w3c/aria/commit/1d0bb68c. :) Let's see what others
> think. In the meantime, does that address your concerns?
>
> --joanie
>
> On 03/12/2015 03:50 PM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
> > Hi, Joanie. It seems that my concern I raised last time [1] is not yet
> > addressed.
> > Thanks.
> > Alex.
> >
> > [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg/2015Jan/0148.html
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs@igalia.com
> > <mailto:jdiggs@igalia.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     Hey all.
> >
> >     As per today's ARIA meeting, I updated aria-current in the spec to
> >     reflect the text proposed by Matt and discussed on the 19 February
> >     meeting. We stated today that the first note is not a note, but the
> >     second and third notes are. I wasn't looking at the text closely when
> >     this was agreed. Having looked at it closely, the second note
> strikes me
> >     as something that really belongs as a normative statement: It's not
> >     merely suggested that authors not substitute aria-current when
> >     aria-selected is called for; authors SHOULD NOT make that
> substitution
> >     (right?). So the commit I just made does that. As a result of not
> doing
> >     what we discussed today, I'm flagging this for review. Let me know if
> >     you want me to make it a true note.
> >
> >     http://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/aria/aria.html#aria-current
> >
> >     Thanks!
> >     --joanie
> >
> >
>
>