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

Hey Matt.

Thank you for the review and also pointing out the repeated should,
which I just fixed.

--joanie

On 03/12/2015 05:01 PM, Matthew King wrote:
> 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
>>     >
>>     >
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 12 March 2015 21:54:39 UTC