Re: Correctly mapping role="search"

T.V Raman wrote:
> Algorithm == good --- mandatory --- at this early stage == asking
> for disaster.


Perhaps by "mandatory", you think I mean a formal Recommendation.

When I say "mandatory", I mean the draft specification should use 
language like "MUST" when talking about the algorithm, not talk in 
wishy-washy terms like "MAY" and "SHOULD". Such language would be 
relative to ARIA's status as a Working Draft. In so far as 
implementations could meaningfully be said to conform, they would 
conform to the draft as of a stated date.

If this is what you thought I meant by "mandatory", can you elaborate on 
how this would be "asking for disaster"?

If an algorithm is mandatory (in this sense) and implementors find a 
serious problem with it, then there's time to change it long before ARIA 
becomes a Recommendation. On the other hand, if there's no mandatory 

* It's hard for implementors to know how to apply the roles, since what 
they mean is merely suggested and not defined. role="main" might be the 
main area for the ancestor role="document", or it might not.

* It's hard for implementors to give feedback, since it's not clear what 
the spec is saying.

* We have lots of people encouraging very early adoption of ARIA. 
Without mandatory algorithms, implementations by early adopters might 
differ substantially, potentially preventing a reliable algorithm being 
defined later. Others may disagree, but I'd suggest even a suboptimal 
but well defined and widely implemented algorithm is preferable to a 
perfectly designed conformance requirement produced late in the day that 
nobody can implement without breaking existing content.

Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis

Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2008 15:34:59 UTC