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

Thank you Janina,

I am satisfied with the resolution. Let us deal with IRI-s vs. URI-s in the next version:-)

Thanks again


On 12 Mar 2014, at 22:13 , Janina Sajka <> wrote:

> Dear Ivan Herman:
> Thank you for acknowledging our response to your comments on the 6 February
> 2014 Proposed Recommendation of Accessible Rich Internet Applications
> (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 ( Because
> of a concern raised by the Director, we reopened the comment to see if
> there was further work that could be done related to that comment. We
> enclose an updated response to your comments. 
> Please review our updated resolutions for the following comments, and reply
> to us as soon as possible to say whether you now accept them. Although you
> acknowledged our response before, because of the updated response we need a
> new acknowledgement from you to record whether you now agree or disagree
> with our updated response. 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 archived.
> Please see below for the text of comments that you submitted and our
> updated resolutions to your 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
> to Formal objections will be reviewed by the
> W3C Director.
> 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 449: (Editorial) comment on ARIA PR
> Date: 2014-02-17
> Archived at:
> Relates to: Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 <>
> Status: Alternate action taken
> -------------
> 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 previously processed and accepted your proposal for this comment.
> However, in meeting with the Director in preparation to transition to
> Recommendation, he was concerned that changing the term in question to IRI
> expands the set of possible values, and that we didn't have sufficient
> implementer review to be sure this wasn't introducing a problem. He
> suggested an alternate way to address the comment, which would remove his
> concern but still hopefully addresses the primary concern your raised This
> proposal is to remove the RDF ID reference from the original text mentioned
> in the comment, but keep the rest of what was there. This would yield:
> Any valid RDF object reference, such as a URI.
> Although this does not modernize to IRI, it seems not critical to do so in
> this version of ARIA (and is on the radar to do so in the future
> potentially). The concern about RDF ID reference should be addressed. 

Ivan Herman, W3C 
Digital Publishing Activity Lead
mobile: +31-641044153
GPG: 0x343F1A3D

Received on Thursday, 13 March 2014 04:54:52 UTC