W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > September 2008

Re: conformance checker for HTML+ARIA?

From: Aaron M Leventhal <aleventh@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:07:19 +0200
To: "Steven Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: "Al Gilman" <Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org>, "Chris Wilson" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, wai-xtech-request@w3.org, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, www-validator@w3.org, hsivonen@iki.fi
Message-ID: <OF4D400E95.4D357C81-ONC12574D4.0041D62D-C12574D4.004294C6@us.ibm.com>
We do need a solution soon. This keeps coming up.

I think W3C should drive this, since developers want the official W3C 
stamp of approval.

W3C can use a multi-pronged solution:
1. Short term: create new DTD and ask W3C to host it. It can be considered 
"beta" for now.  It needs to include HTML 4 + tabindex changes (allow 
negative numbers and on any element) + WAI-ARIA. 
2. Medium term: DTD's are of limited value, and W3C can utilize something 
that provides more in-depth checking. Perhaps Validator.nu, but certainly 
at least looking at Henri's approach
3. Long term: W3C needs to develop a strategy around what validation 
really means in the age of dynamic content.  Getting around validation by 
inserting content via script is happening. I'm seeing developers recommend 
that ARIA is inserted dynamically onload, just for that reason. Seems not 
to be useful.

- Aaron



From:
"Steven Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
To:
"Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Cc:
"Chris Wilson" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "Dan Connolly" 
<connolly@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, "Al Gilman" 
<Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org>, "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, 
www-validator@w3.org
Date:
09/30/2008 01:28 PM
Subject:
Re: conformance checker for HTML+ARIA?




hi mike, thanks for the quick reply,

I have already has some discussions with henri about support for
validating XHTML 1.0 and HTML 4.01
documents containing ARIA markup and he indicated reluctance at this
stage (understandably).

>"It also flags issues based on a set of
> rules, defined by Henri, on what constitutes conformant HTML5+ARIA
> (for example role="document" is not allowed)" and understand the
> concern you're expressing.

I have already pinged henri on this particular issue. And as I said
previously, for the most part i think henri has put a good proposal
forward about ARIA integration in HTML5, one which has not been given
the consideration it deserves, as yet. One which serves as a good
basis for discussion on how ARIA integration into other host languages
could proceed.

regards
stevef

2008/9/30 Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>:
> Hi Steven,
>
> I would think it'd be doable to add support in validator.nu
> experimental support for validating XHTML 1.0 and HTML 4.01
> documents containing ARIA markup. I read the part of your cited
> message where you say, "It also flags issues based on a set of
> rules, defined by Henri, on what constitutes conformant HTML5+ARIA
> (for example role="document" is not allowed)" and understand the
> concern you're expressing. But I think it might be worthwhile to
> have a discussion with Henri about whether those rules can or
> should be adjusted. And/or we should discuss the idea of actually
> defining a spec for HTML 4.01 + ARIA, without reference to DTDs or
> perhaps without reference to any normative formal schema language
> at all.
>
> As I guess you know, the validation part of the set of conformance
> checks that validator.nu does is RelaxNG-based, not DTD-based. And
> all the new work that's done at the W3C and elsewhere that
> involves writing a schema for validation is not DTD-based, and has
> not been for some time now. So as far as spec'ing anything for
> DTD-based validation, I don't think that's something that the HTML
> WG should be helping to facilitate.  DTDs are an old validation
> mechanism and we have for years now had schema languages like
> RelaxNG, that have more expressive power than DTDs and are pretty
> much in every way significant improvements over DTDs.
>
> That said, there's nothing blocking anybody interested in pursuing
> the idea of producing a DTD for HTML 4.01 + ARIA and negotiating
> with the validator.w3.org maintainers to add support for it. I
> just don't think that's something the HTML WG needs to get
> involved with.
>
>  --Mike
>
> Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, 2008-09-30 11:19 +0100:
>
>>
>> There has been some discussion [1] on WAI-xtech about HTML+ARIA
>> validator/conformance checker
>>
>> david dorward wrote:
>>
>> The HTML Working Group is chartered to "maintain and produce 
incremental
>> revisions to the HTML specification"[1], which I would imagine HTML 
4.01
>> + ARIA would fall under. I imagine you would raise the matter with them
>> and see if they would be willing to work with the WAI to publish a 
small
>> Recommendation which makes reference to ARIA and HTML 4.01, defines a
>> Doctype and includes a DTD.
>>
>> Is this something that the  HTML WG would consider?
>>
>> [1] start of thread:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2008Sep/0381.html
>>
>> regards
>> stevef
>>
>
> --
> Michael(tm) Smith
> http://people.w3.org/mike/
>



-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2008 12:08:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:19 GMT