- From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 16:16:40 -0400
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- 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>
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. Please note that PF-WG is not now objecting to, nor expressing a judgement of the technical merit of the proposed language. Rather, it simply avers that the appropriate PF-WG locus of normative WAI-ARIA requirements on user agents is its forthcoming publication, "WAI-ARIA User Agent Implementation Guide (UAIG)." http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-implementation/ Comments on the UAIG are welcome. Indeed, a (second) Last Call announcement for the UAIG is expected in a few weeks. Moreover, while the UAIG is a PF-WG publication, it is a named deliverable of the joint PF-WG and HTML-WG WAI-ARIA User Agent Implementation Task Force http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-ua-task-force HTML-WG members are now, and have always been, most welcome to work with PF-WG members on perfecting this document. Janina Jonas Sicking writes: > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Jonas wrote: > >> However I could easily have missed other implementor feedback. If > >> that's the case a SHOULD level requirement might be ok. > > > > Cynthia wrote: > >> We do want to leave the door open to further development on either > >> accessibility tree or ui-based solutions, in the future, but don't > >> feel that it's ready for a MUST requirement at this time. Personally, > >> I'm not even sure about SHOULD, but am open to discussion on that > >> point. > > > > OK, it sounds like you're both open to considering a SHOUD here. > > Tangible progress! > > > > If we go with a SHOULD for this requirement, and update > > AllowAriaReferHidden to match, do you think we could come to consensus > > on that proposal? > > I could live with a SHOULD level requirement (though as usual I only > speak for me and not the rest of mozilla). > > However I will note that even if we make it a MUST level requirement, > the spec would only be able to go to Rec is there are two > implementations of that requirement. Presumably those implementations > have to be "good" implementations, and so would have to deal with the > UI issues that Cynthia raises. > > / Jonas -- 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 Wednesday, 30 May 2012 20:17:14 UTC