[whatwg] Removing ARIA mappings from the HTML standard in favor of a separate doc

2014-09-02 Thread Domenic Denicola
Over in [1] Steve proposes moving the UA requirements for accessibility mapping 
out of W3C HTML. The corresponding section in WHATWG HTML is [2].

Recently I tried to do implementer-ey things [3] but found the delineation 
between authoring and UA requirements in that section very confusing. So I am 
supportive of anything that clears that up.

In the replies to both [1] and [3] Steve points out that the HTML - ARIA 
mappings given in [2] are not a complete description of how UAs expose HTML 
elements to accessibility technologies, and that the document at [4] is more 
accurate. (For example, he notes that figcaption is exposed as a caption to 
certain accessibility technologies, but there is no way of expressing that in 
ARIA.) So in addition to being confusing, I am not sure the content at [2] 
actually has any normative value; at the very least it is incomplete.

In the future I would like to work toward a system where HTML maps to ARIA, 
which maps to platform-specific accessibility stuff. So for example ARIA would 
grow to have a caption role, and figcaption's accessibility aspects would be 
defined entirely by saying it has ARIA role caption. But apparently that is not 
the world we live in (yet?!), so I think [2] just confuses the issue by 
pretending that it is. In the meantime I think I agree with Steve that [4] 
seems to be a better place for implementers to consult.

Thus I think we should remove all UA requirements from [2] and instead refer to 
[4] as the authoritative source for UA requirements for accessibility in HTML.

I do not have a strong opinion on whether we should keep the authoring 
requirements of [2] intact or remove them as well. This is probably because I 
do not have a strong opinion about authoring requirements in general.

What do you think? I could very well be missing something; this world of 
accessibility specs is pretty new to me...

[1]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2014Sep/.html
[3]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2014JulSep/0355.html
[4]: http://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/html-aam/html-aam.html

Re: [whatwg] Removing ARIA mappings from the HTML standard in favor of a separate doc

2014-09-02 Thread Domenic Denicola
From: Ian Hickson [mailto:i...@hixie.ch] 

 I think the author and UA requirements are tightly related, however (e.g. the 
 ARIA spec term strong semantics implies both), so I don't think it makes 
 sense to move one and not the other.

The problem is, there are multiple sources of truth for the UA requirements. 
The UA requirements in HTML's ARIA section are an incomplete subset of those in 
http://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/html-aam/html-aam.html. To the extent they 
agree, I imagine it is only by sheer force of will.