W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Another run at grappling with @poster

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:29:36 +1000
Message-ID: <BANLkTikhGCmyt4u9fr2Zt3DfdSVNV2EOZA@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Kelly Ford <Kelly.Ford@microsoft.com>, Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>, jeanne@w3.org, Léonie Watson <lwatson@nomensa.com>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:19 AM, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> wrote:
> Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>> I agree - aria-describedby needs to retain the linked elements'
>> internal structure when handing it on to AT for this to work. This may
>> need clarification in the ARIA CR.
> Once again I am concerned that ARIA CR is pretty far along. However we
> were extremely fortunate to have 3/4 of the editorial team of UAAG 2 on
> our call today, and UAAG 2 is still a Working Draft. This begs the
> question to Jim, Kelly and Jeanne - is describing/prescribing User Agent
> processing rules (such as here) in scope for UAAG, and can we get good
> language there that we can then point to when filing bugs at the browser
> vendors? I ask because this was a point made by Eric last week - we need
> something definitive to point the engineers too when filing a bug. (As an
> aside, I believe that this problem, and possible solution, is actually
> larger than the issue being discussed here - clearly it directly impacts
> our discussion, but it has impact on other work efforts as well.)

I agree with this. I believe this was the main idea behind pulling so
many people into the last conference call.

>From how I understand the W3C process (see
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfi ) CR documents
can still have minor changes applied. It says in particular "The
technical report MAY still change based on implementation
experience.". I believe this is exactly what is happening here: we
have identified an issue that the implementers understood differently
from how the WG intended it to be used. Therefore it seems wise for a
sentence of clarification to be included into the TR. Is that
something that the ARIA group may consider?

Best Regards,
Received on Friday, 24 June 2011 08:30:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:57 UTC