Re: CfC: return HTML 5.0 to Last Call

>From the test results http://stevefaulkner.github.io/html-mapping-tests/

55 passing requirements
6 fail

HTML 5 CR Implicit ARIA Semantics at risk:


   1. output element  = status role
   2. link element that creates a hyperlink = link role
   3. input element )with a type attribute in the Text, Search, Telephone,
   URL, or E-mail states with a suggestions source element) = combobox role
   4. input element with a type attribute in the Number state = spinbutton
   role
   5. img element whose alt attribute's value is empty = presentation role
   6. hr element = separator role


--

Regards

SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>


On 16 June 2014 19:19, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:

> Hi Robin, Steve, PLH, All:
>
> An update on the PF request ...
>
> The relevant CfC in the PFWG[1] asks EITHER for testing or an RFC2119
> redesignation to "informative."
>
> As Robin notes, Steve responded to the PF concern by creating and
> running tests whose results are clearly impressive.  Today's ARIA
> telecon discussed these developments with Steve.[2]
>
> We came to the following conclusions:
>
> *       Marking the entire section "At Risk" would be excessive, as much
> *       of it is correct.
>
> *       There are a small number of assertions, perhaps a dozen, which
> *       need to be corrected. Steve will be providing a list of these
> *       shortly. He is also intending to file bugs on these items during
> *       LC. Following today's discussion in the ARIA Task Force,
> *       these are the only items we would consider "At Risk."
>
> What is unclear to us is whether correcting these items, which would
> involve edits to the normative text of the 5.0 specification during Last
> Call, is practical. We do not seek to force HTML back to CR--that is not
> our intent here.
>
> I'm looking for suggestions for resolving the failures identified by
> Steve's testing while keeping HTML moving toward PR and TR.
>
> Janina
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg/2014Jun/0067.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2014/06/16-aria-minutes.html
>
> Robin Berjon writes:
> > Hi Janina,
> >
> > On 13/06/2014 16:13 , Janina Sajka wrote:
> > >However, we do believe there is one section of the candidate LC document
> > >whose RFC2119 status may need to be changed. Therefore, we are
> > >requesting that the following section be marked "At Risk" for the LC:
> > >
> > >
> http://htmlwg.org/heartbeat/WD-html5-20140617/dom.html#sec-strong-native-semantics
> > >
> > >PF notes that the normative requirements on user agents in this section
> > >are not tested and believes that they cannot be appropriately
> > >implemented from the specification alone.
> >
> > I understand where you are coming from but I feel uncomfortable making
> this
> > at risk (which does slate for removal) when it is in fact implemented,
> and
> > implemented relatively well to boot!
> >
> > Looking at these tests:
> >
> >     http://stevefaulkner.github.io/html-mapping-tests/
> >
> > If you forget about elements that are only in 5.1 (details, dialog) it
> > actually looks pretty good. Sure enough, there are a few failures, but
> they
> > don't look like showstoppers to me. The tests leave me rather optimistic
> > overall.
> >
> > Based on this, can you please clarify your concerns regarding
> > implementability?
> >
> > --
> > Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
>
> --
>
> Janina Sajka,   Phone:  +1.443.300.2200
>                         sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
>                 Email:  janina@rednote.net
>
> Linux Foundation Fellow
> Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:       http://a11y.org
>
> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> Chair,  Protocols & Formats     http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
>         Indie UI                        http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
>
>
>