- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 01:25:16 -0700
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Message-id: <703845EE-916D-4502-ABA8-DAA0C8300BEC@apple.com>
As far as I'm concerned: "Using the spec text supplied" was not part of the decision. Implementing the decision is required. Doing it one particular way or another, e.g. using someone's provided spec text, is optional. Regards, Maciej On Apr 11, 2011, at 1:16 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote: > Hi Maciej > > there was never any intention to remove the default roles for h1-h6 > > This is reflected in the spec text changes supplied. Using the spec text supplied will increase consensus, leaving the current text will reduce consensus so it is up to the chairs to decide which course they want to follow. > > Regards > Stevef > > On 11 Apr 2011, at 08:50, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > >> >> A further comment. It seems that one of the points of disagreement is over how this text in the Change Proposal is to be interpreted: >> >> * H1 to H6 allowed roles: button, checkbox, link, menuitem, menuitemcheckbox, menuitemradio, option, presentation, radio, slider, spinbutton, scrollbar, tab or treeitem. >> >> This doesn't mention a default role, unlike the text for "h1 to h6 element that does have an hgroup ancestor". One could plausibly interpret this as: >> >> (a) Change h1-h6 to have no default role >> (b) Make no changes to default role for h1-h6 >> >> From the test alone, it is not completely clear which was intended. From your statements, it seems that your intent was (b). And it seems that Ian agrees that (b) would have been a technically superior choice. Given this, I think it would be best to take interpretation (b). In particular, when I reviewed Ian's list originally at his request, this was the interpretation I assumed, as it seems more reasonable. While the chairs have not discussed this yet, I would personally encourage adopting interpretation (b). >> >> Regards, >> Maciej >> >> On Apr 11, 2011, at 12:02 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote: >> >>> Dear Chairs, >>> Due to the HTML5 editors apparent unwillingness [7] to apply the edits as outlined in [6] >>> I formally request this change [1] be reverted [2] per the issues that I cited [3], and ask I once again >>> that the "set of edit instructions that state exactly what should change" [4] and accepted by Sam [5], that the HTMl5 editor specifically asked for be applied as is, >>> and I further ask that there should be public discussion before any additional changes be made to this text. >>> >>> >>> >>> [1] http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=5980&to=5981 >>> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0125.html >>> [3] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10066#c33 >>> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0067.html >>> [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0071.html >>> [6] http://www.html5accessibility.com/tests/aria-changes.html >>> [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0233.html >>> >>> >>> -- >>> with regards >>> >>> Steve Faulkner >>> Technical Director - TPG >>> >>> www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com | www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner >>> HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives - dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/ >>> Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html >>> >>
Received on Monday, 11 April 2011 08:25:46 UTC