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

Re: [REVIEW REQUESTED] Action-1548: Updating the note text for aria-current

From: Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs@igalia.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:19:24 -0400
Message-ID: <5501F4CC.4010101@igalia.com>
To: Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexander@gmail.com>
CC: W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org>
Hey Alex.

I myself don't see your proposal as particularly unreasonable, and
unstable branch is unstable. So....
https://github.com/w3c/aria/commit/1d0bb68c. :) Let's see what others
think. In the meantime, does that address your concerns?

--joanie

On 03/12/2015 03:50 PM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
> Hi, Joanie. It seems that my concern I raised last time [1] is not yet
> addressed.
> Thanks.
> Alex.
> 
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg/2015Jan/0148.html
> 
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs@igalia.com
> <mailto:jdiggs@igalia.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Hey all.
> 
>     As per today's ARIA meeting, I updated aria-current in the spec to
>     reflect the text proposed by Matt and discussed on the 19 February
>     meeting. We stated today that the first note is not a note, but the
>     second and third notes are. I wasn't looking at the text closely when
>     this was agreed. Having looked at it closely, the second note strikes me
>     as something that really belongs as a normative statement: It's not
>     merely suggested that authors not substitute aria-current when
>     aria-selected is called for; authors SHOULD NOT make that substitution
>     (right?). So the commit I just made does that. As a result of not doing
>     what we discussed today, I'm flagging this for review. Let me know if
>     you want me to make it a true note.
> 
>     http://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/aria/aria.html#aria-current
> 
>     Thanks!
>     --joanie
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 12 March 2015 20:19:59 UTC

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