- From: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:22:50 -0800
- To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org>, Dominic Mazzoni <dmazzoni@google.com>, Ted O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>, "David (Standards) Singer" <singer@apple.com>, WAI XTech <wai-xtech@w3.org>, Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexander@gmail.com>, David Bolter <dbolter@mozilla.com>
> On Dec 11, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote: > >>> Beyond that I'm at a loss to understand how this is >>> insufficiently clear, including for DescribedAt. >> >> It is clear, but it is clearly in direct conflict with the new UA reqs in >> #aria-describedat. >> >>>> The WAI-ARIA specification neither requires or forbids user agents from >>>> enhancing native presentation and interaction behaviors on the basis of >>>> WAI-ARIA markup. [1] >> >> And then later, a direct contradiction in #aria-describedat: >> >>>> User agents SHOULD provide a device-independent mechanism to allow a >>>> user to navigate the user agent to content referenced by the aria- >>>> describedat attribute. User agents SHOULD also provide a device- >>>> independent mechanism to return the user's focus from the descriptive >>>> content view to the original content view. [2] > > Where you see two statements in conflict, I see the first statement > defining the bounds of the second. > > If we haven't made that sufficiently clear, then we need to clarify that > somehow, and we should do so globally, to avoid exactly this kind of > confusion. > > I'm open to proposals as to how best to do this, and I will take some > time to see if I have notions on how to do it. > > Perhaps some additional language were we discuss our reliance on RFC2119 > would help. But, let's do what we must to make it very clear. > > James, would this kind of clarification work for you? I see no ambiguity in the statement above, and cannot think of any acceptable re-wording that would allow for an RFC-2119 SHOULD. If you want to change these statements from SHOULD to MAY, that would suffice, as it would effectively make them no longer requirements. MAY/OPTIONAL recommendations are in line in the prose above. UI requirements including "UAs SHOULD" are not. James
Received on Thursday, 11 December 2014 22:23:44 UTC