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

Aha. Yeah, conflicts are bad. If you've not already done so, could you
please open a new issue against the UAIG so we can discuss it at our
meeting on Tuesday?

Thanks!
--joanie

On 03/12/2015 05:07 PM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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>
>     > <mailto: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>>
>     >     > <mailto: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
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >
>     >
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 12 March 2015 21:37:35 UTC