W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > September 2013

Re: FW: update to at risk features in Canvas

From: Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 13:40:46 +0900
To: Dominic Mazzoni <dmazzoni@google.com>
Cc: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com>, "mark@w3.org" <mark@w3.org>, "schwer@us.ibm.com" <schwer@us.ibm.com>, "dbolter@mozilla.com" <dbolter@mozilla.com>, "franko@microsoft.com" <franko@microsoft.com>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "janina@rednote.net" <janina@rednote.net>
Message-ID: <20130930044044.GO2488@sideshowbarker>
Dominic Mazzoni <dmazzoni@google.com>, 2013-09-29 16:17 -0700:

> Anyway, I don't really understand the argument that we should stick with
> drawCustomFocusRing because it's been in the spec for a long time and
> consensus has been built up around it. From my perspective, no browser has
> implemented it yet (until now, and Chrome has only implemented it behind a
> flag), and there are plenty of concerns.

That's the point I was trying to make, in so many words (your words doing
it better job of it than mine).

> Even Rich agrees that it wasn't what he really wanted, it was just a
> compromise.
> This is the perfect time to fix it - before anyone has shipped it.

That point also seems worth emphasizing.

> Finally, just to be clear, just because we implemented it in Chrome doesn't
> mean we're necessarily going to ship it. I'd really like to ship
> drawSystemFocusRing but I'm not really inclined to recommend shipping
> drawCustomFocusRing as-is, whether it makes the spec or not. I think it
> should be changed or renamed.

It seems odd to me to put time into implementing a feature without planning
to ever actually ship it. I guess in this case it didn't become clear that
you didn't want to ship it until after you had implemented it. But at this
point I'd wonder why if you're not planning on shipping it, you plan to
keep it in the code at all.

Certainly I think for W3C CR exit criteria purposes, an implementation
that's not planning to ever be shipped can't be considered an actual
implementation of the spec.


Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike
Received on Monday, 30 September 2013 04:41:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:56:29 UTC