- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:25:30 -0400
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On Aug 18, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > >> Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >>> As for whether we have an agreement in principle: I believe that we >>> do not have one yet. First, the PFWG reps on the call were very clear >>> that the ideas they described on host language semantics and ARIA >>> were tentative. I believe all agreed that PFWG should put their >>> thoughts on the record in email as the next step. Second, the PFWG >>> reps on the call agreed that the comments about the role attribute >>> were interesting, but did not state a position on whether ARIA would >>> be changed to reflect them, though they did agree to take these >>> comments back to PFWG. I believe once these two points are addressed, >>> then we will in fact have an agreement in principle. Does your >>> recollection differ from mine? >> >> What I want to do is to break the logjam of "I won't respond until the >> other side puts their thoughts on the record". I would like us to >> proceed based on the premise of an agreement in principle, even if it >> is subject to change. >> >> The following is draft thoughts, subject to change, and we have the >> ability to influence these thoughts: >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0962.html >> >> My recollection was that you thought this was sufficient, and upon >> reading Michael's post, I found nothing that surprised me. But I am >> not as close to the problem as you are, let me know if you read this >> differently. > > I believe that email is sufficient to act on. I believe it is detailed > enough to have all the info needed to draft the HTML5 text for > integrating ARIA. I don't think it is reasonable to wait for an ARIA > Editor's Draft given this info. (That being said, it can't hurt to also > put it in the form of an Editor's Draft.) Excellent! (and agreed). >> More immediately, the status of issue-35 (aria-processing) is open. >> Cynthia Shelly had action 114 to get the PF working group to report >> progress. Unless I hear differently, I am going to assume that that >> action is complete, and therefore want to know what the next action >> is, who owns that action, and when it is due. >> >> Based on my (admittedly limited) understanding of the issue, a >> reasonable next step is for somebody to draft a matrix of potential >> combinations[1]. Even if some (or even many) of the squares in the >> matrix are wrong, the exercise will be useful in that that should >> spark useful discussion. > > If Ian doesn't want to do it, I suggest that Henri Sivonen should make > the first draft of such a matrix, since he's effectively already made > one for the validator.nu HTML5+ARIA mode. For reference: http://hsivonen.iki.fi/aria-html5-bis/ If we have an agreement in principle, and a matrix, then the next step would be for somebody to produce a draft. In any and all cases, we still need a task description, an owner, and a date. It is clear to me that there will be second order issues uncovered by ARIA integration. For example there appears to be a gap between what Steven and Maciej appeared to agree to (just yesterday!) and what Ian and Smylers believes (again yesterday!): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0874.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0899.html Note: I'm not suggesting in any way that this particular issue is a showstopper. What I am saying is that ARIA integration is likely to uncover other issues, and finding out what they are is important. Net: given that October is only six weeks away, I believe that accelerating progress towards an initial draft is in order. > Regards, > Maciej - Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 18:26:14 UTC