Re: Web Platform charter under development

Is fine by me. I'm a member of the HTML A11y TF, and the ARIA WG, so
makes no real difference to me.

Jason

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Rich Schwerdtfeger
<richschwer@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please take a look at the new Web Platform Charter. They are considering
> possibly moving the HTML AAM effort to the ARIA WG.
>
> This is a lot of additional work. Steve, Jason, Alex, would you go with that
> work to develop it in ARIA?
>
> Cheers,
> Rich
>
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
>
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
> Subject: Web Platform charter under development
> Date: August 10, 2016 at 3:12:22 PM CDT
> To: Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group <public-apa@w3.org>,
> ARIA <public-aria@w3.org>
> Resent-From: public-apa@w3.org
>
> The Web Platform group is working on a new charter:
>
> http://w3c.github.io/charter-html/group-charter.html
>
> I asked if was ok for APA and ARIA to review and Philippe said yes.
>
> I think APA should review from a view of deliverables and whether we need to
> / are able to work on accessibility review of them. But note that at a
> charter level there might not be anything specific to say unless there's a
> major flag. The important thing is that we can review the stuff in the
> ordinary course of business, which the charter already sets up provisions
> for.
>
> I think ARIA should look at the HTML Accessibility API Mappings, and in
> particular take a position on whether that should continue to be a joint
> deliverable between Web Platform and ARIA, or just become a sole deliverable
> of ARIA. It should also look at whether the necessary deliverables and
> coordinations are expressed to ensure ARIA works in HTML. There may be other
> deliverables that relate to ARIA work as well.
>
> Philippe asks that comments be filed via GitHub:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/issues/
>
> But it might be best if I aggregate any WG feedback rather than get a bunch
> of people filing issues. I'm not sure there will be feedback, but thought it
> was important that these groups have the opportunity to review.
>
> Michael
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 11 August 2016 02:10:07 UTC