W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-pfwg@w3.org > March 2014


From: Jason Kiss <jason@accessibleculture.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 10:29:30 +1300
Message-ID: <CACFCJLSiLq9-8U59oPgfvL-AUHEi_Og=uLz_Q-0Sn0AYaj2vWQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexander@gmail.com>
Cc: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, Rich Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, David Bolter <dbolter@mozilla.com>, Joseph Scheuhammer <clown.idi@gmail.com>, "W3C WAI Protocols & Formats" <public-pfwg@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Cool. Thanks, Alex. I'll file a bug for the removal of the BSTR advice
from the MSAA+IA2 column.

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Alexander Surkov
<surkov.alexander@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, Jason.
> Neither MSAA nor IA2 suggest better than BSTR hack to expose semantics of
> those elements. That means either generic roles work for those elements just
> fine or there's no much well-known examples where generic role fails. If the
> latter case is true then the way IA2 evolves will be something different
> than BSTR hack I think. So I think I agree there's no need to make the spec
> saying to use BSTR hack. However we have two implementations of BSTR
> approach, I'm not aware of other implementations that don't make it. So if
> the spec says something that nobody follows then it doens't really make
> sense. Also this kind of forking will complicate the spec.
> Thanks.
> ALe.x
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:13 AM, jason@accessibleculture.org
> <jason@accessibleculture.org> wrote:
>> Hi Alexander,
>> On 4/03/2014, at 10:50 am, Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexander@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> Hi. I don't see any practical benefits of dropping BSTR hack. Also I would
>> avoid to wake up a sleeping dog, I'm not sure who may have dependencies on
>> it.
>> I guess the question for me is more whether or not the mapping guide
>> should be specifying and recommending a hack that is implemented by one or
>> two browsers (are there others that use this hack?) and discouraged by the
>> keepers of the MSAA spec. I've understood the guide to be recommending
>> mappings first, and documenting what certain browsers do second, and only to
>> the degree that what these certain browsers do aligns with or informs the
>> recommended mappings.
>> Also, even if the mapping guide dropped the hack, that wouldn't force
>> Firefox to do so.
>> Cheers,
>> Jason
>> Thanks.
>> Alexander.
>> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 4:18 PM, jason@accessibleculture.org
>> <jason@accessibleculture.org> wrote:
>>> Looking for folks' opinions on how we relate, in the HTML to
>>> accessibility API mappings, Firefox and Chrome's use of VARIANT to return
>>> the tag name as string (BSTR) for elements without established roles in
>>> MSAA.
>>> I think we had decided at one point that since this approach isn't
>>> "described by the MSAA specification", we wouldn't indicate or promote it as
>>> a preferred mapping in the actual mapping tables, but instead just include a
>>> note about it [1]. The note exists [2], but we still have this use of BSTR
>>> noted in the MSAA + IA2 mappings themselves, for example, see the mapping
>>> for abbr [3].
>>> Am I right in thinking, one, that Mozilla is looking at dropping the
>>> "BSTR hack" [4], and two, that the individual element mappings for MSAA +
>>> IA2 shouldn't include this use of BSTR?
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jason
>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16769#c3
>>> [2]
>>> http://rawgithub.com/w3c/html-api-map/master/index.html#use-of-msaa-variant-by-some-user-agents
>>> [3] http://rawgithub.com/w3c/html-api-map/master/index.html#el-abbr
>>> [4] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=798492
>>> Jason Kiss
>>> jason@accessibleculture.org
>>> http://www.accessibleculture.org
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2014 21:29:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:45:01 UTC