W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-pfwg@w3.org > March 2015

Re: ARIA Agendum Request: Question regarding the ongoing status of ARIA in HTML

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 15:25:32 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+ri+Vm_dq+eX_GQF_bnvDzCyYPPnYB_CXGjiQi-v+Cbov7U_w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>, Matthew King <mattking@us.ibm.com>, Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu>, "W3C WAI Protocols & Formats" <public-pfwg@w3.org>
Hi Janina,

I won't be able to make the meeting, but I have articulated my opposition
to making this a joint deliverable [1]:

I disagree with the request , primarily because I believe it will add
> unnecessary procedural overhead to the production of the spec. It should be
> noted that ARIA in HTML does not define any implementation requirements
> other than on conformance checking tools and it is the purview of host
> languages (in this case HTML) to define the document conformance
> requirements as defined in the ARIA specification.
> For ARIA in HTML to be regularly reviewed by any working group (including
> the PF) it does not need to be a joint deliverable of a working group.
> I would urge any interested parties including the PF to review and file
> bugs on the spec as per HTML WG process.
and Robin Berjon's input [2]:

On 03/03/2015 21:44 , Janina Sajka wrote:
> > 2.)	Now that the ARIA portions of HTML are celled out into a
> > stand-alone module, I would suggest we should also make this document a
> > joint HTML & PF deliverable, via the TF. My primary interest is to a.)
> > make sure we get regular review in PF's ARIA subteam; and b.) assure the
> > public that we're coordinating.
> It isn't clear to me how either of those goals requires a joint
> deliverable. Joint deliverables are costly in terms of overhead, they
> should be reserved for absolutely required cases.
> The public can be assured that we're coordinating simply by seeing the
> many great bugs and pull requests coming from PF!
> Additionally, the hope is for this document (and ideally for as many
> HTML documents as possible) to switch to the new automated publication
> system. Currently, joint publications are not supported by the system.
> > 	I would note that PF put a lot of work into negotiating ARIA in
> > 	the HTML 5.0 spec with the HTML-WG, so I don't feel this is actually a new
> > 	request.
> Is there any reason not to like the work that was done to date? Adding
> procedure on top of a setup that has produced what I think is good
> output seems precisely like adding something new to me.
> > 	3.)	The large majority of PF's ARIA team members are heavily
> > 	engaged in the weeklong CSUN conference this week. There's very
> > 	little opportunity for  them to review this FPWD by the 11th.
> > 	Would a week's extension be acceptable;?
> Is there an expectation that PF might oppose there being a document
> describing ARIA in HTML? Because that is essentially what the FPWD is
> about. After that, the content can be changed pretty much every day so I
> wouldn't see it as the focus of the question here.
> [1]
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2015Mar/0034.html



HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>

On 9 March 2015 at 15:03, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:

> Colleagues:
> May we have a brief agendum on the various ARIA calls this week
> regarding the below?
> Here's the question ...
> Are we content to leave this work to the HTML-WG with only the usual
> level of PF pre-publication scrutiny? Or, would we prefer the document
> be a joint deliverable, whereby we would maintain advance sign-off on
> publication?
> The CfC which follows was issued by the HTML-WG last week while many of
> you were at CSUN. I have raised concerns:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2015Mar/0029.html
> Now that PF's W3C work is resuming following CSUN, I would like to get a
> sense from the several ARIA subteams of what our wg position going
> forward should be.
> Thanks.
> Janina
> PS: Discussion of this CfC and the proposal to move it forward can be
> found on this month's HTML-Admin email list:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/latest
> Sam Ruby writes:
> > This is Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a first public working draft
> > (FPWD) of ARIA in HTML:
> >
> >
> http://rawgit.com/webspecs/html-aria/master/index.src.html?specStatus=FPWD;publishDate=2015-03-11;wg=HTML%20Working%20Group;wgURI=http://www.w3.org/html/wg/;wgPublicList=public-html
> >
> > This CfC is in response to a request from the Editor[1] of the
> > specification.
> >
> > If anyone needs an extension feel free to request one, and specify both a
> > reason for the request and how long you feel you need.
> >
> > Silence will be taken to mean there is no objection, but positive
> responses
> > are encouraged. If there are no objections by Tuesday March 10th, this
> > resolution will carry.
> >
> > - Sam Ruby
> >
> > [1]
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2015Mar/0002.html
> --
> 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 Monday, 9 March 2015 15:26:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:45:29 UTC