Re: Revert request for r5981, and moving forward on ISSUE-129

Since there are no objections to either of the following ways of implementing the decision, either would be acceptable to apply at this time:

(1) Applying the diff at http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=976&action=edit
    OR
(2) Applying the diff at <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=976&action=edit> and also adding "header" to the roles allowed for h1-h6


The chairs note that in particular, if option (1) is taken, it is still acceptable to file a follow-up bug to add the "header" to allowed roles for h1-h6; the WG Decision should not be taken as standing in the way. While it does seem clear that the decision left it off the list, it seems this was partly due to oversight, and we are fine with correcting it via bugs.

Therefore:

- Option (2) might save some time, as there would be no need to cycle back through a separate bug to add back "header", if all agree that this would be a good change.
- Option (1) hews closer to the letter of the decision, and it would be reasonable to first apply the decision as stated, then fix up any minor points via separate bugs.

Thus, either approach seems fine.

Regards,
Maciej




On Apr 15, 2011, at 12:31 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:

> hi Maciej,
> 
>> As far as I'm concerned, if you and Ian are in agreement to make this additional change
> 
> well if Ian would repsond to the list then we would know if we have
> agreement. and If Ian will not agree it would be appreciated if he can
> provide a clear technical reason for not doing so.
> 
> regards
> stevef
> 
> On 15 April 2011 05:41, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>> 
>> As far as I'm concerned, if you and Ian are in agreement to make this additional change, and no one specifically objects by tomorrow morning, then it is just as acceptable as Ian's diff. It is also acceptable (as far as I'm concerned) to handle this refinement via a separate bug. Thus, if there are no objections, I will list this as one of the acceptable alternatives for implementing the decision.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Maciej
>> 
>> On Apr 14, 2011, at 6:56 PM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Maciej
>>> 
>>> I would like a response to this  email ( below) before the change is applied
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> Stevef
>>> 
>>> On 14 Apr 2011, at 08:58, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Maciej,
>>>> 
>>>>> So far, there are no objections to Ian's proposed text, linked here:
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=976&action=edit
>>>>> 
>>>>> Steve has reviewed it and said he can live with it, and believes it is close enough to the decision as written.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> As there is only one word difference (in regards to my proposed diff and Ians)
>>>> I ask Ian to add 'heading' to the allowable roles as it allowing it is consistent with all other elements that have a default role.
>>>> 
>>>> This would save time and effort on the part of all parties. If Ian will not agree It would be appreciated if he can provide a clear technical reason for not doing so.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Ians:
>>>> 
>>>> "heading role, with the aria-level property set to the element's outline depth
>>>> Role must be either link, menuitem, menuitemcheckbox, menuitemradio,
>>>> tab, or treeitem"
>>>> 
>>>> mine explcilty allows the headings role, rather than implicitly:
>>>> 
>>>> "heading role, with the aria-level property set to the element's outline depth
>>>> Role must be either HEADING link, menuitem, menuitemcheckbox,
>>>> menuitemradio, tab, or treeitem"
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> regards
>>>> stevef
>>>> 
>>>> On 14 April 2011 02:00, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 12, 2011, at 1:09 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I have provided am updated set of spec changes for review by the working
>>>>>>> group: http://www.html5accessibility.com/tests/aria-changesv2.html
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This does not accurately reflect the decision. If we're going to correct
>>>>>> the mistakes in the decision, we should correct all of them, not just the
>>>>>> ones you want to correct.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Maciej suggested that instead we should apply the decision as the chairs
>>>>>> made it, and then file bugs to address the issues arising. I suggest we
>>>>>> follow his advice instead of trying to fix the mistakes here.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So far, there are no objections to Ian's proposed text, linked here:
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=976&action=edit
>>>>> 
>>>>> Steve has reviewed it and said he can live with it, and believes it is close enough to the decision as written.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We will bring this up as a topic at tomorrow's telecon. If we hear no objections tomorrow, or within 24 hours (i.e. by 10 AM Pacific Time Friday), then we will deem this diff an acceptable implementation of the decision, and follow-up issues can be tracked as bugs.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Maciej
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 Friday, 15 April 2011 21:43:54 UTC