Re: Response to your comments on Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0

> Please review our resolutions for the following comments, and reply to us
> as soon as possible to say whether you accept them or to discuss additional
> concerns you have with our response.
> ...
> --------------------------------
> Response from the Working Group:
> --------------------------------
> We have removed the statement from the "select" role that conflicted with
> the statement in the "option" role. The questions about how Statement B
> overrides Statement A no longer relate to a conflict.

Yes, I'm satisfied with that response to my comment and I accept it as a
resolution for the comment.

  --Mike

Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, 2014-02-03 16:05 +0000:

> Dear Michael[tm] Smith:
> 
> Thank you for your comments on the 18 January 2011 Candidate Recommendation
> of Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/CR-wai-aria-20110118/). The Protocols and
> Formats Working Group has reviewed all comments received on the draft. We
> would like to know whether we have understood your comments correctly and
> whether you are satisfied with our resolutions.
> 
> Please review our resolutions for the following comments, and reply to us
> as soon as possible to say whether you accept them or to discuss additional
> concerns you have with our response. If we do not hear from you by that
> date, we will mark your comment as "no response" and close it. If you need
> more time to consider your acknowledgement, please let us know. You can
> respond by email to public-pfwg-comments@w3.org (be sure to reference our
> comment ID so we can track your response). Note that this list is publicly
> archived.
> 
> Please see below for the text of comments that you submitted and our
> resolutions to your comments. Each comment includes a link to the archived
> copy of your original comment on
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg-comments/.
> 
> Note that if you still strongly disagree with our resolution on an issue,
> you have the opportunity to file a formal objection (according to 3.3.2 of
> the W3C Process, at
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews)
> to public-pfwg-comments@w3.org. Formal objections will be reviewed during
> the candidate recommendation transition meeting with the W3C Director,
> unless we can come to agreement with you on a resolution in advance of the
> meeting.
> 
> Thank you for your time reviewing and sending comments. Though we cannot
> always do exactly what each commenter requests, all of the comments are
> valuable to the development of Accessible Rich Internet Applications
> (WAI-ARIA) 1.0.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Janina Sajka, PFWG Chair
> Michael Cooper, PFWG Staff Contact
> 
> 
> Comment 424: Please clearly specify what role=option must be contained in or owned by
> Date: 2013-08-13
> Archived at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg-comments/2013JulSep/0005.html
> Relates to: Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 - option (role) <http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/CR-wai-aria-20110118/#option>
> Status: Accepted proposal
> 
> -------------
> Your comment:
> -------------
> PF Working Group, please handle this as a formal comment on specification
> requirements and implementation and testing of the Candidate Recommendation
> of WAI-ARIA 1.0 at http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/
> 
> Comment:  
> Please make the WAI-ARIA precisely and unambiguously specify the complete
> list of roles that role=option elements must be contained in or owned by
> (that is, which roles can contain or own role=option elements).
> 
> I'm implementing and testing HTML+ARIA validation support in the W3C
> validator, and I'm not able to implement and test the role=option
> document-conformance requirements in the spec properly without the spec
> being clear about what the requirements actually are.
> 
> Specifically, I suggest doing the following:
> 
> 1. Include a single statement at http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/roles#option
> such as the following:
> 
>   "Authors MUST ensure elements with role option are contained in or owned
> by an element   with any of the following roles: combobox, listbox, menu,
> radiogroup, or tree."
> 
> ...with the "combobox, listbox, menu, radiogroup, or tree" part being an
> exhaustive list of the container/owner roles where role=option is actually
> allowed (I don't know myself whether that's actually the complete list
> intended by the editors of the spec or not).
> 
> 2. Remove any other statements in the spec that specify container/owner
> requirements for role=option. For example, remove the current statement in 
> in http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/roles#select about container/owner
> requirements for role=option.
> 
> Problem with current spec: One part of the current CR (and ED at
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/roles#option as well) first states this:
> 
>   A. "Authors MUST ensure elements with role option are contained in, or  
> owned by, an element with the role listbox."  
> http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/roles#option
> 
> So that would seem like a clear requirement that role=option elements must
> only be used with role=listbox containers/owners.
> 
> But then another part of the the current CR and ED states this:
> 
>   B. "Authors MUST ensure elements with role option are contained in an
> element   using one of the non-abstract child roles of select, such as
> combobox,   listbox, menu, radiogroup, or tree."  
> http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/roles#select
> 
> Questions:
> 
> 1. Does statement B above override statement A's requirement that
> role=option elements must only be contained in or owned by an element with
> role=listbox?
> 
> 2. Is the list of elements "such as combobox, listbox, menu, radiogroup, or
> tree" in statement B an exhaustive list of the "non-abstract child roles of
> select" which should allow role=option? It seems like it is, if instead of
> "non-abstract child roles of select", what editors of the spec really meant
> to write here instead is "the subclass roles of the select role". (But if
> not, how do I find out from the spec what the complete list of
> "non-abstract child roles of select" is?)
> 
> 3. Can role=option elements also be owned by (not just contained in)
> elements with the roles listed in statement B?
> 
> My comment at the beginning of this message is a request for the spec to
> clarify the three questions just above.
> 
> --------------------------------
> Response from the Working Group:
> --------------------------------
> We have removed the statement from the "select" role that conflicted with
> the statement in the "option" role. The questions about how Statement B
> overrides Statement A no longer relate to a conflict.

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike

Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2014 15:47:04 UTC