- 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>
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 sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net 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