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

Re: Moving forward with Issue-204

From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 12:50:33 -0400
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: 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>
Message-ID: <20120608165032.GC4223@sonata.rednote.net>
Sam Ruby writes:
> On 06/07/2012 11:26 PM, Janina Sajka wrote:
> >Hello, All:
> >
> >It seems that people are waiting for me to try and move Issue-204
> >forward. Allow me, then, to attempt in this email to cut to the core question that still
> >separates the two Issue-204 CPs as I understand it. Can we, or can we
> >not, agree to spec changes for Sec. 7.1 which will take us to a single
> >CP on Issue-204 and avoid the WBS process? The two CPs in question are,
> >of course:
> >
> >http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Correct_Hidden_Attribute_Section_v3
> >http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/AllowAriaReferHidden
> >
> >While also suggesting more global author warnings, proponents of
> >AllowAriaReferHidden have recently sought "must" requirements (or
> >perhaps only "should" requirements) on user agents as respects
> >Issue-204:
> >
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012May/0128.html
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012May/0129.html
> >
> >The rationale appears to be that to do so is no less burdensome than to
> >create a11y support for canvas:
> >
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012May/0130.html
> >
> >Meanwhile, PF has stated it cannot accept "must" or "should" requirements on user
> >agents in the context of Issue-204:
> >
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012May/0156.html
> >
> >Our concerns are broader than any engineering challenge. Rather, they
> >are very much focused on the lack of demonstrated user benefit. Indeed,
> >they also include concern over anticipated user harm. This was
> >reiterated at the recent F2F and is summarised nicely at:
> >
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012May/0137.html
> >
> >So, since PF cannot accept "must" or "should" requirements on user agents
> >vis a vis Issue-204, can AllowAriaReferHidden accept "may" or "might"
> >language vis a vis user agents?
> From the W3C Process[1]: "Dissenters cannot stop a group's work
> simply by saying that they cannot live with a decision"

Except that there are two specs and two WGs involved. We need to work
toward agreement, which is why I've sought to remind us that ARIA is a
PF spec, even as HTML is the HTML-WG's spec. The process concern you
cite above works both ways.

> >My apologies if this question was not evident from my previous postings.
> This question was evident, and can certainly be resolved via a survey.

Certainly. But it could also, be addressed directly--which is the point
of my question. I am perplexed and disappointed that my direct appeal is
now diverted.

Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
		Email:	janina@rednote.net

The Linux Foundation
Chair, Open Accessibility:	http://a11y.org

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Chair,	Protocols & Formats	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
	Indie UI			http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 16:51:03 UTC

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