- From: Aaron Leventhal <aleventhal@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:47:16 +0000
- To: Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexander@gmail.com>, Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs@igalia.com>
- Cc: Dominic Mazzoni <dmazzoni@google.com>, ARIA Working Group <public-aria@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+1LECSJ3tj1MuRHOY=nAH0ruKtndJGobMfrqhssDusEHkDbsA@mail.gmail.com>
I would think so. Right Dominic? On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:29 AM Alexander Surkov < surkov.alexander@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, Joanie. Catching up with old emails, sorry for being slow on this. > > My understanding is aria-owns affects on the accessible tree, thus it'd be > reasonable to expect aria-owned children in name computation results I > think. > Cc'ing Aaron for his opinion, since he was around the name computation > stuff lately. > > Thank you. > Alex. > > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs@igalia.com> > wrote: > >> Hey Dominic (and Alex): >> >> When you get a chance, could you please look at this issue: >> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/538 >> >> My understanding from today's meeting, and from Joseph Scheuhammer, is >> that the intended meaning of "child node" in Step 2F is "DOM child >> node." The spec just fails to make that explicit. Firefox is using that >> interpretation, but Chrome is not. And since you were the one to make >> the change in Chrome [1], we wanted to get your insight and opinion. >> >> If you feel that the DOM-child-only interpretation is reasonable, we'd >> like to make that change to the AccName AAM 1.1 spec prior to our >> transitioning it to CR. On the other hand, if you feel like your >> implementation is the right way to go, we need to discuss it and reach >> consensus. >> >> Thanks in advance for your time. >> --joanie >> >> [1] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=561766 >> > > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs@igalia.com> > wrote: > >> Hey Dominic (and Alex): >> >> When you get a chance, could you please look at this issue: >> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/538 >> >> My understanding from today's meeting, and from Joseph Scheuhammer, is >> that the intended meaning of "child node" in Step 2F is "DOM child >> node." The spec just fails to make that explicit. Firefox is using that >> interpretation, but Chrome is not. And since you were the one to make >> the change in Chrome [1], we wanted to get your insight and opinion. >> >> If you feel that the DOM-child-only interpretation is reasonable, we'd >> like to make that change to the AccName AAM 1.1 spec prior to our >> transitioning it to CR. On the other hand, if you feel like your >> implementation is the right way to go, we need to discuss it and reach >> consensus. >> >> Thanks in advance for your time. >> --joanie >> >> [1] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=561766 >> > >
Received on Thursday, 27 April 2017 15:43:28 UTC