Re: [SVG-AAM] edits

I've updated the pull request with the changes discussed on the call
today.  Please merge when you have a chance, Fred.

https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/97

Specifically, I:

   - Changed the editor's note re opacity into an informative note.
   - Removed reference to UIA Express API.
   - Added cross references between the two editor's notes on how to handle
   `use` elements.

~Amelia

On 22 October 2015 at 14:15, Amelia Bellamy-Royds <
amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I've completed the promised edits to the SVG Accessibility API Mappings
> spec.
>
> There's a bulleted list of all changes (as well as links to the "Files
> changed" code diff) on the Github pull request page:
> https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/97
>
> I did not, in the end, incorporate a single, detailed summary of the name
> and description computation, as I had promised Chaals.  Once I really took
> a careful look at it again, I winced.  Copying over the existing text from
> the AccName spec would not add any clarity.  I started to write a
> plain-language interpretation of it, but then decided that what really
> needs to be done is to edit the original so that in can be understood
> without translation.
>
> I may approach Joseph Scheuhammer and the other editors of that spec about
> re-writing that section completely.  But that won't happen this week.
>
> Until my changes get merged into the main repo, you can view the compiled
> text on rawgit:
> http://rawgit.com/AmeliaBR/aria/svg-aam/svg-aam/svg-aam.html
>
> Please in particular look at the text of the Editor's Notes, which
> describe the outstanding issues that we are asking for particular feedback
> on.  For screen reader users, these always start with a level-3 heading
> with the text "Editor's Note"; for visual users, they are the orange boxes.
>
> Best,
> Amelia
>
>
>
> On 21 October 2015 at 13:11, Amelia Bellamy-Royds <
> amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Chaals,
>>
>> The <use> example is a good one (where you would want both specific and
>> generic descriptions available).  As I interpret it currently, the
>> algorithm would only return one or the other, unless you explicitly use a
>> labelled-by or described-by value with multiple IDs.
>>
>> I will make the edits to include a single, complete version of the
>> algorithm and I will try to clarify the summary to match.  However, we may
>> want to then discuss this on a teleconference to make sure that the
>> approach we're recommending is the one we want!
>>
>> Amelia
>>
>>