- From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:39:14 -0400
- To: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org)" <mike@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4FECB2E2.1020204@w3.org>
I've edited the proposal for these changes as I understood them. Hopefully this means it's ready to move to consensus call. Michael Janina Sajka wrote: > Colleagues: > > Inasmuch as minutes from the WG teleconference today: > http://www.w3.org/2012/06/28-html-wg-minutes.html > do not clearly delineate the next steps we agreed during the call, I ask > that the WG Chairs promptly correct my characterization of those next > steps should I misrepresent them in any way. > > Michael, your acceptance of Ted's two edits was noted. The WG requests > you proceed to make those changes in the CP. > > Agreement to have the new spec editor wordsmith the CP was also noted, > provided that we be afforded the opportunity to review, and correct as needed, the editors rewording. It was requested that you add a note to this effect to the CP. > > By my reading, this should almost close consensus. The remaining item > unaddressed is whether the editorial section Ted wants to remove, but > Michael wishes to keep, can stay. It appears to me the next step on this > item is Ted's. > > Is any of this incorrect? > > Janina > > > > Michael Cooper writes: > >> Thanks for your feedback. My comments are inline below. In summary, I >> think we've agreed on the basic proposal and are at the stage of >> "dotting i's and crossing t's". >> >> Edward O'Connor wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Michael Cooper wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I have updated the ISSUE-199 Change Proposal on ARIA processing, >>>> following guidance from the 3 May 2012 discussion and incorporating >>>> much of Ted O'Connor's counter proposal. I believe this version >>>> covers the agreement of that meeting. Some details of HTML-style spec >>>> language may need to be tweaked. >>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ARIA_Processing >>>> >>> This revised proposal is definitely much closer to something that I >>> think we could find consensus on. Some notes: >>> >>> There's no rationale provided for the changes proposed in the section >>> titled "Clarify the existing ARIA section." As the change appears >>> entirely editorial, I'd rather we leave it out of a consensus proposal. >>> >> Hmm... I agree this is editorial, but I do think it makes the section >> easier to process. If it's not blocking consensus (which I don't know >> that it is), I'd rather leave it in. I'm not sure how to express an >> explicit rationale, other than "people seemed to be misreading the >> relationship of the parts of the section and adding these headers help >> to distinguish them better". >> >>> The text of the "Role attribute" section closely matches the text of >>> my proposal. There are two differences: >>> >>> 1. The proposed spec section is titled "Role Attribute," whereas in my >>> proposal it's titled "The ARIA role attribute." Because of the >>> historical origins of the name of WAI-ARIA's role="" attribute in the >>> XHTML Role Attribute Module, I think it's helpful to consistently >>> refer to the attribute in spec text as "the ARIA role attribute" to >>> avoid the implication that the attribute is intended as a generalized >>> vehicle with which to imbue elements with additional semantics. >>> >> I can see the point of this argument, that it could be read as >> incorporating by reference features of the Role Attribute that HTML has >> explicitly declined. I do I think it is misleading to call the section >> "ARIA role attribute", since it is not defined in ARIA, but I don't feel >> strongly enough about the issue to push back on this. So to be formal, >> I'll accept this edit. >> >>> 2. The "split on spaces" paragraph isn't marked as an implementor-only >>> section. It probably should be, but I doubt this is an area of >>> intentional disagreement. >>> >> I didn't attempt to include certain flags the editor might include, >> since I don't know what they are or how best to include them in a change >> proposal in the wiki. I am happy to have the change proposal expressing >> this in whatever manner is appropriate. In other words, I accept this edit. >> >>> In terms of normative statements, I have no objection to the text in >>> the section titled "State and Property Attributes." That said, I find >>> this text hard to understand, so I would prefer a consensus proposal >>> describe the normative requirements and defer to the editor for the >>> precise wordsmithing. >>> >> I'd be ok with the editor taking a stab at wordsmithing this, but only >> if there is a check-back phase to make sure substantive changes aren't >> unintentionally introduced. Alternatively, somebody else could clean >> this up before we call for consensus. I have tried several times to come >> up with wording for this section, and don't believe I would be able to >> make further improvements that you will consider better. I think if >> we're agreed on the substance, the wording that others feel better >> represents it is better proposed by those people - yourself, or somebody >> else who feels they have a handle on it. >> >>> Thanks, >>> Ted >>> >> Michael >> -- >> >> Michael Cooper >> Web Accessibility Specialist >> World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative >> E-mail cooper@w3.org <mailto:cooper@w3.org> >> Information Page <http://www.w3.org/People/cooper/> >> >> > > -- Michael Cooper Web Accessibility Specialist World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative E-mail cooper@w3.org <mailto:cooper@w3.org> Information Page <http://www.w3.org/People/cooper/>
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2012 19:40:37 UTC