On 11/14/2012 10:26 PM, jayashree viswanathan wrote:
Hi Jon ,
http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/appendices
Please read through "10.1.6. HTML 4.01 plus WAI-ARIA DTD" . The
question on if we would like to move upto HTML 5, XHTML now can be a
separate discussion as always with each offering some advantages Vs
the other and javadoc as a tool can move upto one of these with
changes to be made for them based on need.
Though I believe this need not be an impediment to move to WAI-ARIA
standard as mentioned in the page itself to move to this upcoming
standard .
I agree with your point on HtmlTree nodes and can add the ARIA
attributes to the node, rather than constructing a string and I can
make the changes and pass on a fresh webrev soon .
Thanks and Regards,
Jayashree V
Jayashree,
Thanks for the reference; it makes interesting reading, and may provide
a way forward.
I certainly like the idea of separating use of and conformance to
WAI-ARIA from whether or not to move to HTML 5, and would welcome a
discussion on what it would take to have javadoc generate HTML 5. Maybe
that is initially provided as an option. I think there needs to be two
parts to the discussion: what would we have to do to javadoc-generated
output (coming from the tool itself) and and would be the implications
on existing doc comments.
Now to the ARIA DTD you mentioned. I read it and I'm somewhat confused
by the content. In particular, I wonder if all the text is intentional,
or if we have come across a cut-n-paste error. In section 10.1.6, it says:
However, note that when this DOCTYPE is present in a document, most
user agents treat the document as generic XML rather than HTML. This
causes them to be unable to support named character entities defined
by the DTD (e.g., ©). Therefore, authors need to avoid use of
named entities outside of the predefined entities in XML
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#sec-predefined-ent> ([XML
<http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/references#ref_XML>], Section 4.6).
I have a hard time believing that you could treat an HTML document as
"generic XML", and I see the identical text in 10.1.3, for an XHTML+ARIA
DTD, where the text makes more sense (i.e. is more believable.)
Do you have any more experience with the use of HTML+ARIA DTD, and with
documents using it?
I'm wondering if we should make use of ARIA an option in the doclet, so
that user's can choose whether or not to use it. If the option is
selected, then javadoc would change the DTD and add all the
role="presentation" attributes that you suggest. I note that once you
start using HtmlTree nodes, it is much easier to conditionally add
attributes to them that it is to change the string content that might be
generated.
----
As a side note on HtmlTree nodes, the goal is that RawHtml nodes should
only be used for unparsed user input (i.e. provided via options). There
are still some internal uses of RawHtml, most notably for links, which
have yet to be converted to the new paradigm. In time, I would like to
eliminate /all/ RawHtml nodes, and parse HTML supplied in options and
convert it to valid nodes.
-- Jon
