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

My point was that UAIG has error handling section which conflicts with ARIA
spec aria-current definition. I'm not sure which spec should define error
handling but it'd be great if it was defined in one place.

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs@igalia.com> wrote:

> 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
> >     >
> >     >
> >
> >
>
>