W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > September 2008

Re: conformance checker for HTML+ARIA?

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:23:57 -0500
Message-ID: <48E2448D.4030000@aptest.com>
To: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
CC: Aaron M Leventhal <aleventh@us.ibm.com>, Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, hsivonen@iki.fi, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, wai-xtech-request@w3.org, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, www-validator@w3.org

I think the simplest thing to do here is just create the DTDs.  I can do 
it - take a couple of hours.  As to what they should be called...  
HTML4+ARIA and XHTML+ARIA seem sensible to me.  It follows the 
convention that we use in the XHTML  2 working group.

I will post links to the DTDs when they are complete.  Might not be 
until tomorrow.

David Dorward wrote:
> Aaron M Leventhal wrote:
>> Okay, as you say, we can just call it something else.  We can call it
>> HT-A11Y or ARIA-HT if we want. I guess that would be a start. 
> I've been responding to points as they've come up, without really
> looking at the underlying reasons for them. So - what is the point of
> this exercise?
> It started out with a request for the ability to validate an HTML 4.x
> document with ARIA features attached (because some people have
> requirements to conform to specifications). If it had been a bit later
> in the day, I might have thought to point out that once you add new
> elements or attributes (or redefine existing ones) then you no longer
> have HTML 4, so you wouldn't be conforming to it.
> At the moment, the exercise looks like it is heading towards the
> creation of a new version of HTML based on HTML 4 with some
> modifications backported from HTML 5 and ARIA features spliced in -
> which is a relatively hefty proposition (and fairly close to what I
> think the HTML Working Group should be focusing on).
> Is that what people want? If so, it would probably need more then just
> whipping up a DTD. It would involve a fair bit of treading into the HTML
> Working Group's area of responsibility, and would probably require at
> least some backing from browser vendors (since an unsupported spec is,
> well, XHTML in a world with Internet Explorer and the big player).
>> HTML needs to allow equal keyboard and mouse interaction otherwise it
>> violates some WAI specs. Shouldn't HTML's violations of WAI specs be
>> considered bugs and fixed right away so that users with disabilities
>> don't have to suffer over W3C's own issues?
> Authors can conform to the WAI specs by building any JavaScript around
> elements which are naturally keyboard focusable. As far as I know,
> everything else in an HTML document either can't be interacted with or
> is accessible via the keyboard.

Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2008 15:25:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:32 UTC