- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 00:02:34 +0200
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: public-html WG <public-html@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+ri+V=GXfBh91=VErBhz80by46hEDSXhkpFGQjOZn1Cyjbg+A@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Henri, In practice, it would mean two implementors working on two distinct > browser engines saying that the proposed feature is a good idea that > they would like to implement and realistically might. > Ok so have talked to the main chrome accessibility engineer, and he indicated that he would implement it if it had support from the community. regards SteveF On 15 October 2012 15:22, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Steve Faulkner > <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: > > What does "broader buy-in, including from implementors, showing that the > > extension specification is seen as a good idea." mean in practice? > > In practice, it would mean two implementors working on two distinct > browser engines saying that the proposed feature is a good idea that > they would like to implement and realistically might. (No > authoritative commitment to implement or a statement about timeline > required.) Ideally, it would also mean an indication of support and > likelihood of adoption from Web authors, but, as far as I can tell, > the W3C or its participants have not yet figured out how to > meaningfully gauge if Web authors would actually like to use a feature > if the feature existed. (You can probably always find a couple of Web > authors who say they like a given feature, but that doesn't really > tell you anything about what kind of author adoption a feature would > really get on the Web scale.) > > > What we know from the hgroup feature is that it does not have buy-in from > > vendors for the implementation aspects that have any real effect (outline > > and accessibility API mapping). We know that it does no have wide support > > from the various communities. we know various proposals for > > removal/replacement were submitted form varying sources. i.e its not > seen as > > being a good idea and that has been the case for an extended period of > time. > > I was talking about the standard of inclusion for new features. At > this point, hgroup in the parser or UA stylesheet is not a prospective > new idea but an interoperably implemented piece of the Web Platform. > > If you combine my position on hgroup in the parser and UA stylesheet > and your outlook for it affecting the outline exposed for > accessibility, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that the > standard of inclusion at the WHATWG has been too lax in the case of > hgroup. However, there is no logical contradiction between my position > on keeping hgroup in the parser and the UA stylesheet and at the same > time calling for a stricter standard of inclusion for future features. > > As for support in the various communities, I think it's semi-relevant > to mention that what constitutes a valid an EPUB3 Navigation Document > involves a normative statement about hgroup. This is not necessarily > an endorsement of hgroup by the IDPF, since the normative statement is > likely simply a result of working with what I draft of HTML5 provided. > Also, I don't think the evolution of the Web Platform should be > constrained by non-Web reuses of Web technology. My point is that at > this point, there exists at least one external community that has > already built upon the assumption that hgroup exists. (Their building > upon it seems to be restricted to document conformance, though. I see > no requirements on Reading Systems hinging on hgroup processing.) > > For Web authors to make pages for which the outline algorithm provides > sensible outlines, I think it needs to have a tangible visual effect > in Web authoring. I think in practice, that would mean having a > selector that matches on the outline depth. I think implementing such > a selector in a performant way would be the real test of > implementability and merit for the outline algorithm in general and > the role of hgroup in it in particular. > > > Taking another example, the <maincontent> element [3] this is an > extension > > specification that I will be putting forward as a FPWD, it builds on > common > > authoring practices it provides built in rather than bolt on > accessibility, > > it has support from the developer and accessibility community, in > > discussions I have had with accessibility engineers from mozilla they > > indicated that they would implement the accessibility mapping, it is > > publically available for wider review, no implementors have objected to > it > > (yet), what more do I need to do for it be considered as reasonable for > > publishing as a FPWD? > > Another implementor expressing an opinion that it is a good idea and > interest in implementing the accessibility mapping in a non-Gecko > engine. > > -- > Henri Sivonen > hsivonen@iki.fi > http://hsivonen.iki.fi/ > > -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com | www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives - dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/ Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Monday, 15 October 2012 22:03:43 UTC