W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2011

[whatwg] Attitude and Direction of the WHATWG

From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 08:07:25 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTimr=wJqDGSA59Oi7yFo9rGcM-pdfEfyriJZqBQP@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 6:52 AM, Charles Pritchard <chuck at jumis.com> wrote:
> My understanding is that those items are covered by DOM, and WebIDL, which
> HTML inherits from.
> There's a bulk of APIs under the "webapps" group, covering much of the rest.
>
> I think that HTML spec is primarily a format spec, not an API spec.

Do you mean you think it /should/ be? The current draft specification
is clearly a vocabulary plus APIs spec.

>>> Unfortunately, contenteditable is less accessible to users than it
>>> should be. I'd like to see that addressed.
>>
>> Could you elaborate on how it is less accessible than it should be?
>
> I can't. But I can give some examples of shortcomings, as the Google word
> processor
> and Microsoft's editor are both quite short of coming anything near desktop
> word processing.
>
> The CK editor is certainly still a great example of pushing it as far as
> they can.

These aren't examples of accessibility shortcomings in the spec or
examples of accessibility shortcomings in products but just examples
of products you think have accessibility shortcomings.

Can you give concrete examples?

> My understanding is that rich text editing is really handed off to the UA
> (reading that from the ARIA
> spec under the Rich Text editor control), and that it's usability is a UA
> issue, not a scripting/format issue.

Are you saying there's nothing the HTML spec can do to improve matters?

If UAs applied UUAG2 to their implementations of contenteditable, would that
address the problems to which you allude? Or is UAAG2 missing some important
advice?

--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 00:07:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:31 UTC