On Tuesday 2014-02-25 09:43 -0500, david bolter wrote: > I support this W3C Recommendation.
Yep. While I wasn't entirely happy with some of the history that led to the current state, I agree we should support it. (In particular, in the early days of ARIA I was told, in private conversations, that it was intended as a temporary measure until HTML5 was ready and had enough of the semantics needed. But I never asked the people telling me that that that intent should be documented publicly, and as far as I know there's no public record of it, and it probably didn't represent any consensus at the time. I'd probably have preferred that the semantics needed for accessibility were part of the semantics of the language rather than a separate add-on that can be inconsistent, but that's also not the way the Web platform works today. I did learn something about the value of working in public, though.) So I'll submit a review in support of advancing to Recommendation as-is. -David > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 2:22 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote: > > W3C recently published the following proposed recommendations (the > > stage before W3C's final stage, Recommendation): > > > > Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/PR-wai-aria-20140206/ > > > > WAI-ARIA 1.0 User Agent Implementation Guide > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/PR-wai-aria-implementation-20140206/ -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense. - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
