Re: feedback requested on WAI CG Consensus Resolutions on Text alternatives in HTML 5 document

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, Sam Ruby wrote:
> > 
> > Here is my feedback in the absence of knowing what the point of the 
> > proposal is:
> > 
> >   I intend to merge ARIA in as soon as it is possible to do so in a 
> > well- defined manner.
> I believe that we are at that point.

As far as I can tell, the ARIA spec:

...does not yet define in sufficient detail how conflicts between 
semantics of the host language and ARIA are to be resolved. For example, I 
don't see any text that defines how to handle this:

   <input type=checkbox role=radio>

...or this:

   <input type=radio name=a id=a>
   <input type=radio name=b id=b>
   <input type=radio name=c id=c role=radiomenu aria-owns="a b">

If I am mistaken, could you explain to me where the normative text to this 
effect is to be found?

> > Just telling me what the spec should say without telling me why 
> > doesn't work, because I have no way of knowing whether what such a 
> > proposal says is intentionally in conflict with previous feedback that 
> > result in what the spec says, or if it is trying to solve some other 
> > problem and merely accidentally changed other things, or any number of 
> > other possibilities.
> > 
> > So yes: I don't understand. Could someone help me understand? Sam, do 
> > _you_ understand? Could you explain it?
> To suggest that providing spec text without telling why doesn't work is 
> a disingenuous position for a person who doesn't "have time to document 
> the rationale... because I spend all of my time answering different 
> questions and editing the spec"[1] and yet intends to be ready for last 
> call in approximately two months[2].

If you want to volunteer to help document the rationale, as I have asked 
for many times, then please do so.

The WHATWG is going to be ready for last call in less than two months:

The only list of issues that hasn't been shrinking is the one you're in 
charge of, the W3C issue tracker.

> At this point, asking you to document the rationale for everything in 
> the draft is a bit much to ask, but I do believe that asking you to 
> document the rationale for sections of the spec that have open issues 
> associated with them is a reasonable request.  In this case, we are 
> talking about issue 31[3].


Now, can we get back to you, Sam, explaining to me what problem Steven's 
proposal is solving, since apparently you understand his proposal?

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Monday, 17 August 2009 00:20:27 UTC