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

Joanie, thank you; it looks really good.

I also agree with this:
> the ARIA spec explains what should be exposed (or not); the mapping 
> document explains how things which should be exposed are to be 
> exposed on each platform.

And, BTW, I just happened to read a little further and noticed "Should" 
repeated in the following paragraph about aria-describedat:
"Authors should should use native markup features and self-describing 
content where possible (e.g., accessible SVG charts, audio-described 
video, EPUB footnotes), and only link to external content for descriptions 
when no other mechanism is available in the host language."

Matt King
IBM Senior Technical Staff Member
I/T Chief Accessibility Strategist
IBM BT/CIO - Global Workforce and Web Process Enablement 
Phone: (503) 578-2329, Tie line: 731-7398
mattking@us.ibm.com



From:   Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs@igalia.com>
To:     Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexander@gmail.com>, 
Cc:     W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org>
Date:   03/12/2015 01:47 PM
Subject:        Re: [REVIEW REQUESTED] Action-1548: Updating the note text 
for aria-current



If you're suggesting that text be removed from the spec and placed in
the mapping document, I don't think so. I think the ARIA spec explains
what should be exposed (or not); the mapping document explains how
things which should be exposed are to be exposed on each platform. Right?

--joanie

On 03/12/2015 04:35 PM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
> Thank you, Joanie. It's much better. Nevertheless wouldn't it be
> reasonable to let UAIG to handle that instead? In that case, the browser
> would expose the value the author provided.
> 
> Thanks again.
> Alex.
> 
> [1]
> 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-implementation/#document-handling_author-errors

> 
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs@igalia.com
> <mailto:jdiggs@igalia.com>> wrote:
> 
>     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>
>     > <mailto: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
>     >
>     >
> 
>