W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Re: Integration of HTM

From: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 19:26:20 -0600
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFD8195794.5B360334-ON862576C0.0007AE91-862576C0.0007E798@us.ibm.com>

We are calling it the accessible DOM for canvas. It starts and ends with
the <accessible></accessible> tags and it is not visually rendered. It is
not fallback content. It is a subtree of canvas separate from the fallback

Rich Schwerdtfeger
Distinguished Engineer, SWG Accessibility Architect/Strategist

             Jonas Sicking                                                 
             >                                                          To 
             02/03/2010 04:01          Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS      
             PM                                                         cc 
                                       Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>,         
                                       Re: Integration of HTM              

Sorry to bring this up again, but can we please please please use a
different term than "shadow DOM". "Shadow DOM" is already used for a
very different thing in XBL2, and I'm worried about confusion.

Several other terms have been suggested, such as "Fallback DOM", "DOM
inside <canvas>", "Accessibility DOM", "Accessibility tree", "fallback

I think this would be beneficial for both XBL2 and for the
accessibility discussions not to have these things confused.

Best Regards,
Jonas Sicking

On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
> Ian, others,
> We are working on canvas accessibility for the shadow DOM and I am
> with the Mozilla team on the shadow DOM approach with some sample code
> Microsoft.
> As we discussed, the use of media query of alternative content I am
> to pull over a standard set of attributes from the IMS Access For All
> specification. It was suggested that we preface these with an aria-,
> these are not part of the aria specification and preceding these with an
> aria- dash would not give credit to the IMS Access For All effort.
> I raised the suggestion that these be preceded with afa- but we agreed
> would require agreement from the working group.
> For example, one attribute would be AdaptationType and we would define an
> equivalent CSS Media query property for it.
> What's the group on using afa- to preamble each attribute name? ... or
> should we just include the attributes without the afa-?
> As was requested they would not be limited to canvas content selection
> at the moment I see no naming conflicts with existing HTML 5 attributes.
> Rich
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
> Distinguished Engineer, SWG Accessibility Architect/Strategist

(image/gif attachment: graycol.gif)

(image/gif attachment: pic31091.gif)

(image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif)

Received on Thursday, 4 February 2010 01:27:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:58 UTC