W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2012

Re: HTML-A11Y Task Force Consensus on Issue-204 (Updated)

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 16:08:45 -0400
Message-ID: <4FCFB8CD.8030408@intertwingly.net>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Frank Olivier <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
On 05/31/2012 08:00 PM, Janina Sajka wrote:
> Hello, Jonas:
> Jonas Sicking writes:
>> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Janina Sajka<janina@rednote.net>  wrote:
>>> The WAI Protocols and Formats Working Group strongly objects to any RFC
>>> 2119 normative requirements on WAI-ARIA markup in HTML Working Group
>>> specifications. Normative WAI-ARIA requirements are the chartered
>>> responsibility of PF-WG and are out of scope for HTML-WG.  In other
>>> words, "might" or "may" statements are acceptable, but "should" and
>>> "must" statements are not.
>> This seems inconsistent with the HTML a11y Task Force which previously
>> promoted change proposals which had MUST requirements stating that
>> only the flattened accessibility tree should be exposed.
> It is correct that a previous version of the TF backed I-204 CP
> contained normative requirements on user agents. The H5 Chairs pointed
> out a strong objection to those requirements during our discussion of
> the TF  CP at the H5 Face to Face, and we apologetically withdrew that
> language then and there. We should not have spec'd that, and are now
> simply looking for that same consistent approach in competing CPs.

To be clear, what was stated in the F2F[1] was that that specific 
objection to a specific SHALL (namely to a SHALL that would preclude 
browser vendors from improving accessibility in the future) would be strong.

What you are now suggesting is that all SHALLs be removed, independent 
of merit.

If you point out a SHALL that, if adopted, would preclude browser 
vendors from improving accessibility in the future, I would be glad to 
make a statement consistent with the one I made in the F2F regarding 
that shall too.

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/04-html-wg-minutes.html#item07
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 20:09:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:53 UTC