Re: ISSUE-30: longdesc "InstateLongdesc" - outlook

hi Sam,

section 3.2.7 WAI-ARIA [1] states

"User agents are required to implement ARIA semantics on all HTML
elements, as defined in the ARIA specifications."

this appears to be unambigious and without controversy in regards to
the content of 3.2.7 WAI-ARIA


 [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/wai-aria.html#wai-aria

regards
SteveF

On 6 September 2012 15:16, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On 09/06/2012 10:11 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>>
>> Hi Sam,
>>
>> I am certain that moving all ARIA out of HTML5 will not lead to an
>> increase in consensus.
>>
>> We have one isolated issue which the 'jurisdiction' argument has been
>> raised. I would suggest that it has no bearing on every other aspect
>> of ARIA in HTML5 which resides in 3.2.7 WAI-ARIA [1].
>>
>> Why not take out the isolated piece and work on that in a separate
>> document? or remove it and work on it in HTML.next? Its not as if any
>> implementers are champing at the bit to implement what is currently in
>> the spec that is causing the issue right?
>
>
> I welcome a concrete proposal which identified any and all areas where joint
> ownership is warranted.  My only intent was to identify a potential upper
> bound on what that content would be.  If we can identify a much smaller set,
> that clearly would be preferable.
>
>
>> [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/wai-aria.html#wai-aria
>>
>> regards
>> SteveF
>
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
>> On 6 September 2012 14:52, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/06/2012 09:21 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Sam,
>>>>
>>>>> As this may take some time to resolve, I would like to Robin Berjon to
>>>>> scope
>>>>> out what it would take to split out all ARIA integration from the HTML
>>>>> document into a separate spec that could proceed at a different pace
>>>>> from
>>>>> the rest of the document, and with the intent that said document could
>>>>> become a joint deliverable of the HTML WG and the PFWG.
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks like there currently are approximately 150 occurrences.
>>>>>
>>>>> $ grep "\baria\b" source | wc -l
>>>>> 149
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As one of the people who has spent the last 5 years working on getting
>>>> ARIA integrated into HTML5 I find the suggestion of removing it
>>>> entirely because of one isolated issue, odiuous and inappropriate.
>>>>
>>>> We have worked through many, many issues on ARIA integration and while
>>>> I am not entirely satisfied with the result, it is much better to have
>>>> it in than out. I cannot fathom why this would be even be suggested.
>>>>
>>>> I for one would rigorously object to any such moves.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Acknowledged.
>>>
>>> Recapping the path that got us to this point:
>>>
>>>   * We had extensive discussion over a long period of time which
>>>     produced two proposals, and a decision that chose one of the two.
>>>
>>>   * This produced a Formal Objection that appears to reject both
>>>     proposals as acceptable solutions (which indicates a lack of
>>>     participation) and cites an unwillingness to "cede decisions"
>>>
>>>   I hope you will agree that a lack of participation coupled with an
>>>   unwillingness to cede decisions is a particularly deadly combination.
>>>
>>> The current state:
>>>
>>>    * We have a set of proposals for the path forward and -- this is
>>>      the key part -- NO ACTIVE DISCUSSION OR SCHEDULE.  I will note
>>>      that one of those proposals is from a co-editor of ARIA 1.0
>>>      itself.
>>>
>>> The paths forward:
>>>
>>> 1) Active and vigorous discussion resumes, leading to the selection of
>>>     one preferred alternative that everybody can live with.  If that
>>>     occurs, I can assure you that the chairs will quickly and
>>>     enthusiastically adopt said consensus.
>>>
>>> 2) Split out the portions where there is overlapping jurisdictions
>>>     and make it a joint deliverable.  This is the less preferred
>>>     of the two approaches.  I don't even know what the impact of
>>>     doing so would be, but given that discussion has ceased, it would
>>>     only be prudent to scope out such, and I've asked Robin to do so.
>>>
>>>> regards
>>>> SteveF
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 4 September 2012 23:03, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 08/30/2012 04:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 2012-08-09 at 00:09 -0400, Judy Brewer wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Given the dependency on an unknown date (decision availability
>>>>>>>> on Issue 204), and the overlap with scheduled vacations, we
>>>>>>>> request a date of [Issue 204 decision availability] + 3 weeks,
>>>>>>>> with the understanding that if we can have it ready earlier we
>>>>>>>> will do so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After doing some back and forth on this, including looking at the
>>>>>>> impact on the timeline, I suggest that the Chairs start the survey
>>>>>>> related to issue 30 on August 31st, and no later than that. If
>>>>>>> changes have to be made to any of the change proposals, those must
>>>>>>> be made before August 30th, 5PM EDT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At the request of the Director and the W3C Team, the Chairs are
>>>>>> holding off on the ISSUE-30 survey until an unknown time, but no
>>>>>> sooner than Wednesday next week.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The latest outlook has now been revised to be "no sooner than 11 Sept".
>>>>>
>>>>> Current status on the expedited formal objection[1] is that it
>>>>> identifies
>>>>> a
>>>>> single paragraph to be removed.  Two proposed replacements have been
>>>>> identified:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18744#c0
>>>>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18745#c2
>>>>>
>>>>> We have some indication that WAI ARIA would be the right place to
>>>>> discuss
>>>>> proposed wording:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Aug/0284.html
>>>>>
>>>>> No time schedule was mentioned for providing said wording.
>>>>>
>>>>> The same minutes suggested that "jurisdiction" was a key concern.  The
>>>>> formal objection itself makes a similar case.
>>>>>
>>>>> As this may take some time to resolve, I would like to Robin Berjon to
>>>>> scope
>>>>> out what it would take to split out all ARIA integration from the HTML
>>>>> document into a separate spec that could proceed at a different pace
>>>>> from
>>>>> the rest of the document, and with the intent that said document could
>>>>> become a joint deliverable of the HTML WG and the PFWG.
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks like there currently are approximately 150 occurrences.
>>>>>
>>>>> $ grep "\baria\b" source | wc -l
>>>>> 149
>>>>>
>>>>> Note: this request is just to scope out the effort, not to make the
>>>>> changes.
>>>>> The request is to get this information together -- possibly incomplete
>>>>> --
>>>>> by
>>>>> September 11, noon ET.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
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 Thursday, 6 September 2012 14:22:31 UTC