Re: Request from APA-WG re ARIA in HTML Spec

Aria in HTML will also be persisted in validator rules.

Whoever is writing html plus aria validators is in control since it is easier for developers  to press a button than to read guidelines. Therefore everybody is encouraged to check and verify for instance nu validator behavior since its rule set is persisted “how it should be” thinking.

Or to put it different, validator results should always be in sync with the expectations of members in both working groups. Otherwise this will seed confusion.

- Stefan

Von meinem iPad gesendet

> Am 19.03.2018 um 21:33 schrieb Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>:
> 
>> On 18/03/2018 23:55, Bryan Garaventa wrote:
>> What I now understand based on your responses is that, the Web Platform Working Group fully controls all ARIA conformance criteria on the web, not the ARIA Working Group.
> 
> Not quite. The WG that's responsible for the host language, is the WG responsible for writing the ARIA conformance requirements for that language. So for HTML it used to be the HTML WG, and is now the WebPlat WG. For SVG it's the SVG WG, and for CSS it's the CSS WG.
> 
>> All changes to ARIA web conformance have to be explicitly approved by the Web Platform Working Group and included in the ARIA-HTML spec, or ARIA conformance will not be valid according to the W3C, no matter what the ARIA specification says is valid for authors to do.
> 
> The WG responsible for the host language defines (not approves) the ARIA conformance requirements for that language. The different specs provide different pieces of the puzzle. For example: the ARIA spec defines the button role; the HTML AAM describes which HTML elements expose the button role; and the ARIA in HTML spec defines which HTML elements the button role may be applied to.
> 
>> Any changes to ARIA web conformance have to be filed as issues against the ARIA-HTML spec, and will be considered on a case by case basis by members of the Web Platform Working Group, where they will be either approved or denied by its members. If denied, it will not be ARIA conformant according to the W3C, no matter what the ARIA specification states is valid ARIA usage criteria.
> 
> You mention "web conformance" but there isn't really any such thing. The ARIA spec has always deferred host language conformance to the host language.
> 
> If you want to see changes in the HTML ARIA conformance, or the SVG ARIA conformance, then you should file issues on the repos for those specs. Those issues will then be triaged by the host language WGs.
> 
> Members of all WGs are encouraged to participate in issue discussions, regardless of which WG has responsibility for the documents. documents are then send out for wide review, where the ARIA WG has the opportunity to further scrutinise the specification. This is the second time the ARIA WG has been requested to provide wide review for ARIA in HTML as a stand-alone spec for example.
> 
>> I don't know why nobody ever mentioned this to me before. This seems like something that is sort of important for all ARIA Working Group members to be aware of.
> 
> It is, yes. It's been this way for several years now. HTML ARIA conformance has been in the HTML spec since before HTML5 went to Rec in 2014. SVG also includes ARIA conformance requirements.
> 
> Léonie
> 
> -- 
> @LeonieWatson @tink@toot.cafe Carpe diem
>

Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2018 06:29:45 UTC