Re: False aria-describedby expectations in ARIA Authoring Practices (longdesc) from Jonas Sicking on 2011-04-26 (wai-xtech@w3.org from April 2011)

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:41:36 -0700
To: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, David Bolter <dbolter@mozilla.com>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, wai-xtech-request@w3.org, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Message-ID: <BANLkTim0pHeX5_uohNNf1kgc8+p=WmkRxw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>wrote:

>  Hi Jonas,
>
> ARIA is going through Candidate Recommendation so changing the browser
> implementation this late in the game is problematic. I read through the code
> and I don't see what the patch does for accessibility. It appears to simply
> be iterating through valid ids that match the describedby reference. What
> are you actually doing with this patch as it is not clear?
>
Huh? I don't understand why the spec status affects the ability to fix bugs
in the various implementations? Going to rec freezes the spec, not the
implementations.

/ Jonas

Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2011 20:45:30 UTC