Re: 48-Hour Call for Consensus (CfC): Make HTML 5.0 Strong Semantics Informative

Thanks, Rich.

So, I think we're might be getting to the clarity that Steve was asking
for. But, I can't speak for him, of course. So, Steve, would you accept
this CfC with the clarification that Rich provides? If so, I think we
can ammend our request accordingly, though we should confirm the amended
approach on the Monday ARIA call first.

Will that work?

Janina

Richard Schwerdtfeger writes:
> 
> Janina,
> 
> I have thought about this some more and we should say that the default
> implicit semantics should be treated as informative. We need to keep the
> rules defined in the spec. for strong native semantics where the author is
> restricted in the on the use of roles, states, and properties on specific
> elements. This can be tested with the a validator or an accessibility test
> tool as these are normative authoring requirements. We don't want to wait
> until a later version of HTML to start imposing those requirements. The
> ARIA specification allows a host language to do this:
> 
> "Host languages MAY document features that cannot be overridden with
> WAI-ARIA (these are called "strong native semantics"
> 
> I apologize for not thinking this through more earlier.
> 
> Best,
> Rich
> 
> 
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
> 
> 
> 
> From:	Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
> To:	W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org>
> Date:	06/11/2014 12:37 PM
> Subject:	48-Hour Call for Consensus (CfC): Make HTML 5.0 Strong
>             Semantics  Informative
> 
> 
> 
> Colleagues:
> 
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to formally request that the HTML-WG
> take one of the following two courses of action with respect to
> strong native semantics in HTML 5.0:
> 
> http://htmlwg.org/heartbeat/WD-html5-20140617/dom.html#sec-strong-native-semantics
> 
> 
> 1.)		 Mark this section as RFC2119 "informative" in the current 5.0
> version of
> HTML, with a note that it is expected to become normative in a future
> version of HTML.
> 
> 2.)		 Produce testing results that validate maintaning this
> section's
> current RFC2119 normative status.
> 
> The ARIA Task Force believes it may be possible to take the second
> course of action without an HTML Accessibility API Mappings
> specification, but such a specification would make the task much
> simpler. This document is, of course, not yet available for this
> purpose.
> 
> This proposal is made by the WAI_PF ARIA Task Force, as discussed in its
> regular weekly teleconference on 2 June last, logged at:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2014/06/02-aria-minutes.html
> 
> Please reply on list to this email with any objections or concerns.
> Silence will be interpreted as ascent, though positive
> messages of support are most welcome.
> 
> If there are no objections by Close of Business Boston Time Friday 13
> June, this CfC will carry, and will be communicated to the HTML-A11Y TF
> and the HTML-WG as a formal PF comment and request.
> 
> Janina
> 
> --
> 
> Janina Sajka,		 Phone:		 +1.443.300.2200
> 		 		 		 sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
> 		 		 Email:		 janina@rednote.net
> 
> Linux Foundation Fellow
> Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:		 http://a11y.org
> 
> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> Chair,		 Protocols & Formats		 http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
> 		 Indie UI
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
> 
> 



-- 

Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
			sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
		Email:	janina@rednote.net

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Chair,	Protocols & Formats	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
	Indie UI			http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/

Received on Thursday, 12 June 2014 17:40:27 UTC