Re: ARIA CR exit criteria

No. It is two implementations of each feature and not two complete browser mappings for ARIA1.1. ... Dames for Aria 1.0

We also only need to test what changed.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 3, 2016, at 10:24 AM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Léonie Watson [mailto:tink@tink.uk]
>> I don't think 1.1 specific exit criteria have been written. There is an open action
>> to do this [1], and my assumption is that they will be broadly similar to the 1.0
>> exit criteria [2].
> [Jason] A note to the ARIA 1.0 exit criteria reads as follows.
> "Note that the goal is to find two implementations of each WAI-ARIA feature using any of the accessibility APIs referenced in the WAI-ARIA User Agent Implementation Guide,
> not to find two implementations on each accessibility API defined in the guide. The two required passing examples for different tests may be found on different implementations."
> 
> I discern no reason why this needs to change for ARIA 1.1, but the Accessibility API Mapping Guides are now on a Recommendation track as well, as I think they should be. This raises the question of what their CR exit criteria will be. Must two interoperable implementations exist for each accessibility API mapping - that is, two distinct user agents that map ARIA and host language features to each accessibility API?
> 
> Such a stringent requirement no doubt raises serious difficulties, but it isn't clear how else to establish the interoperability of different user agent implementations of each API.
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
> 
> 
> Thank you for your compliance.
> 
> ________________________________
>

Received on Sunday, 4 September 2016 14:58:09 UTC