Re: Discussing ARIA in HTML5 integration

On Apr 9, 2008, at 18:30, Al Gilman wrote:
> Before the formal joint meeting at the TPAC2007, there were some  
> earlier
> discussions that involved invited individuals, a cross-section
> across interested groups, of an exploratory nature to try to frame
> a proposal to put before the several groups for consideration.  What
> Gregory may have been reflecting was frustration in getting those
> calls together.
> Whatever that quote is referring to, it has been superceded by the  
> results
> of formal joint meetings and PFWG drafts.

Since those telecons and the TPAC meeting had "HTML5 people", it  
seemed like there had been a failed meeting attempt in the March or  
April timeframe.

> First: we need to be clearer about what the deal is as regards the  
> time sequence of
> the following two milestones:
> (first) HTML supporting an @role attribute and tolerating @aria-*  
> attributes defined
> per the PFWG charter in HTML processing so as to support an HTML 
> +ARIA profile of
> markup.
> (second) taking functionality that is presented in a more factored,  
> attribute-based
> form in the WAI-ARIA layer and enabling the same functionality  
> through native features
> in HTML5.
> We have received some public comments that sound as though the  
> second were
> as near-term as the first. Neither the published plans of the two  
> working groups
> nor our intuition as software architects suggests this to be the case.

I guess some of those comments have been from me. To me, it seems that  
browsers implement features piecemeal from different specs without a  
waterfall where all of ARIA preceded all of HTML5. This is why in my  
thinking I've assumed that a solution may involve implementing a  
feature straight from HTML5 without going via ARIA first thereby  
avoiding creating a larger legacy of intermediate steps than necessary.

> We will continue to be diligent in overtly sharing all information  
> necessary for
> the first milestone above with the HTML WG, i.e. in public.
> But we don't want to see scope creep in that dialog to try to  
> address the second
> at the same time.

Not considering the second point up front makes it harder to fix later  
on, though.

> Meanwhile, we have received comments both from the public and from  
> within our
> group indicating the desirability of a public-view editor's draft of  
> the WAI-ARIA
> specification.  For now, let me just say that we appreciate the  
> advantages of
> this and we are studying the matter.

Making the ARIA Editor's Drafts public would be great.

Henri Sivonen

Received on Thursday, 10 April 2008 10:08:31 UTC