Re: HTML-AAM

Leonie,

The ARIA working group discussed this at the last meeting but I am happy to take this to the working group again. 

At the last meeting we agreed to look at taking this out for a CFC (HTML-AAM) ownership. A number of us, like myself, did not have an issue with this as we have always had a stellar working relationship with the HTML-AAM team in Web Platforms. Furthermore, I think there is value in host platforms taking greater responsibility for the accessibility of their platform. 

That said, there were a some who had 2 questions which warrant a response that I cannot give them. 

1. What is the tremendous overhead you are referring to? It takes about 2-3 weeks to get sign off on other specs. we have. … IOW it gets signed off by both working groups. 
2. In the past we have seen things go out for review for a week which is not an adequate amount of time to review a spec. Given that there is a reliance on the ARIA spec. what is the review process you will put in place for external groups if we were to switch from joint publication to it solely being a deliverable of Web Platforms?

Like you, we have a very large work load and given the tie in with our work members would like to know how much time is available for review. Would you be willing to reach out to the ARIA working group and ask for an acceptable review period could be instituted prior to publication of CR? 

Rich


Rich Schwerdtfeger




> On Aug 30, 2016, at 6:44 AM, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk> wrote:
> 
> On 29/08/2016 18:18, Rich Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>> There are parts of the HTML AAM, by design, that reference the ARIA
>> specs. to ensure consistency across host languages. This level of
>> coordination needs to still happen even if you do take it over.
>> 
>> How do you propose that this is done if it is owned solely by your
>> group? This is the concern that others have expressed.
> 
> If this is a wide concern it would be good to move this discussion to public-aria@w3.org, and to hear from the people who have these concerns.
> 
> It would help to understand a little more about the concerns. We already have one specification (ARIA in HTML) that normatively refferences ARIA but is not a joint deliverable. In due course this will go out for wide review (as all such specs do).
> 
> Whether the HTML AAM is a joint deliverable or not, both WGs will need to review it and provide feedback to the editors. Whether that is triggered by a formal request, or done more informally as the spec evolves, will be down to the work mode of each WG and its available bandwidth.
> 
> Our offer is designed to reduce the process overhead (more so for ARIA WG than WebPlat), not reduce the review time either WG puts into the HTML AAM.
> HTH
> Léonie.
> -- 
> @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem
>