Re: conformance checker for HTML+ARIA?

hi mike, thanks for the quick reply,

I have already has some discussions with henri about support for
validating XHTML 1.0 and HTML 4.01
documents containing ARIA markup and he indicated reluctance at this
stage (understandably).

>"It also flags issues based on a set of
> rules, defined by Henri, on what constitutes conformant HTML5+ARIA
> (for example role="document" is not allowed)" and understand the
> concern you're expressing.

I have already pinged henri on this particular issue. And as I said
previously, for the most part i think henri has put a good proposal
forward about ARIA integration in HTML5, one which has not been given
the consideration it deserves, as yet. One which serves as a good
basis for discussion on how ARIA integration into other host languages
could proceed.

regards
stevef

2008/9/30 Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>:
> Hi Steven,
>
> I would think it'd be doable to add support in validator.nu
> experimental support for validating XHTML 1.0 and HTML 4.01
> documents containing ARIA markup. I read the part of your cited
> message where you say, "It also flags issues based on a set of
> rules, defined by Henri, on what constitutes conformant HTML5+ARIA
> (for example role="document" is not allowed)" and understand the
> concern you're expressing. But I think it might be worthwhile to
> have a discussion with Henri about whether those rules can or
> should be adjusted. And/or we should discuss the idea of actually
> defining a spec for HTML 4.01 + ARIA, without reference to DTDs or
> perhaps without reference to any normative formal schema language
> at all.
>
> As I guess you know, the validation part of the set of conformance
> checks that validator.nu does is RelaxNG-based, not DTD-based. And
> all the new work that's done at the W3C and elsewhere that
> involves writing a schema for validation is not DTD-based, and has
> not been for some time now. So as far as spec'ing anything for
> DTD-based validation, I don't think that's something that the HTML
> WG should be helping to facilitate.  DTDs are an old validation
> mechanism and we have for years now had schema languages like
> RelaxNG, that have more expressive power than DTDs and are pretty
> much in every way significant improvements over DTDs.
>
> That said, there's nothing blocking anybody interested in pursuing
> the idea of producing a DTD for HTML 4.01 + ARIA and negotiating
> with the validator.w3.org maintainers to add support for it. I
> just don't think that's something the HTML WG needs to get
> involved with.
>
>  --Mike
>
> Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, 2008-09-30 11:19 +0100:
>
>>
>> There has been some discussion [1] on WAI-xtech about HTML+ARIA
>> validator/conformance checker
>>
>> david dorward wrote:
>>
>> The HTML Working Group is chartered to "maintain and produce incremental
>> revisions to the HTML specification"[1], which I would imagine HTML 4.01
>> + ARIA would fall under. I imagine you would raise the matter with them
>> and see if they would be willing to work with the WAI to publish a small
>> Recommendation which makes reference to ARIA and HTML 4.01, defines a
>> Doctype and includes a DTD.
>>
>> Is this something that the  HTML WG would consider?
>>
>> [1] start of thread:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2008Sep/0381.html
>>
>> regards
>> stevef
>>
>
> --
> Michael(tm) Smith
> http://people.w3.org/mike/
>



-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html

Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2008 11:26:23 UTC