W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2013

RE: Technique H25 / real life

From: Foliot, John <john.foliot@chase.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 16:39:40 +0000
To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
CC: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, "joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie" <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>, "janina@rednote.net" <janina@rednote.net>
Message-ID: <D0DBF1AE71D5D1448811AC41795190740EAB41B3@SCACMX021.exchad.jpmchase.net>
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
>
> It would be worth checking if the remedial behavior exhibited by browsers
> is actually codified as part of HTML5's algorithm for constructing the DOM
> (I doubt it though). If so, this moves from being a "bug" to being
> documented standard behavior, which should then also work in future.

Good point, although I doubt it too. However, as my Dad used to say about the word "assume"...

Does anyone know the answer here? Else it becomes yet another To-Do item on the ever growing list.


> >  I personally would even go so far as to suggest that any Technique 
> >  that also fails W3C validation should not be included in the WCAG 
> >  Techniques document – it is happy circumstance and nothing more.
>
> This is not the case here, though. The technique in question shows the
> correct code that would pass W3C validation.

Yup

>
> And just to echo what Andrew said: techniques are only informative, so
> talking about whether or not a technique should be failed does not make
> sense.

Hmmm... 2 points: one, a WCAG Technique *could* be (or become) invalid for any number of reasons (and thus "fail"), and two, I think that there was a tiny language gap there by Matthieu, which we can certainly overlook on an international list.


> You pass/fail based on the more tech-agnostic success criterion,
> not based on techniques.

Agreed. This however was part of the problem: if we "pass" or "fail" on outcomes alone, then the test Matthieu ran, using invalid code, met the Success Criteria in at least some of the browsers he used for testing: the value of <title> was being rendered as it should, even if it was improperly nested/placed in the source code. This *is* a problem (or is it? In my opinion it is), and something, somewhere, is failing. 

I personally believe that "we" need to do something about this somehow, and while I am loathe to say "somebody should" I am very tight for cycles these days. I would suggest however that *if* somebody wants to take the ball and run with it that the following steps should be taken:

1) Verify Patrick's point about HTML5's algorithm for constructing the DOM (True or False)

2) If True, test current crop of Browsers to determine which browsers do or don't meet the algorithm
   a) Send note to WCAG WG and add/modify Techniques documents to address this "new" possibility
 
3) If False, test current crop of Browsers to determine which browsers do or don't exhibit this behavior
   a) File bugs against offending browsers (non-conformant code issue)

As I noted, I will monitor this thread and if somebody wants to run with this ball then Thank You in advance. Otherwise I will add it to the list, but I cannot say when I have time to chase it further.

Cheers!

JF


This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential, legally privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.  Although this transmission and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by JPMorgan Chase & Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates, as applicable, for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.  If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you.
Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2013 16:41:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:50 UTC