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

Dear Ivan Herman:

Thank you for your comments on the 6 February 2014 Proposed Recommendation
of Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0
( 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
by 28 February 2014 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 (be sure to reference our
comment ID so we can track your response). Note that this list is publicly

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

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
to 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

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.


Janina Sajka, PFWG Chair
Michael Cooper, PFWG Staff Contact

Comment 449: (Editorial) comment on ARIA PR
Date: 2014-02-17
Archived at:
Relates to: Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 <>
Status: Accepted proposal

Your comment:
there was a great presentation at a workshop this week on the usage of ARIA
at an educational publishing workshop; this prompted me to read the
WAI-ARIA spec:

I found, however, an editorial issue that, I think, should be dealt with
before publishing it as a Rec.

In the role model section:

there is a repeated sentence describing values for properties:

  "Any valid RDF object reference, such as a URI or an RDF ID reference."

I am afraid this should be changed overall. The fundamental problem is that
'RDF ID reference' is _not_ an RDF concept. It is a (very!) unfortunate
term used in a particular serialization of RDF, namely RDF/XML. @ID in an
RDF/XML file is really identical to when @id is used in HTML: it defines a
(fragment) URI. But this shorthand does not exists in, for example, the
Turtle or JSON serialization of RDF.

Response from the Working Group:
We will update the references to be an IRI as you suggest.

Received on Monday, 24 February 2014 18:59:58 UTC