On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:10 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote: > Two W3C Proposed Recommendations are available for the membership of > W3C (including Mozilla) to vote on, before it proceeds to the final > stage of being a W3C Recomendation: > > Core Accessibility API Mappings 1.1 > https://www.w3.org/TR/core-aam-1.1/ > https://w3c.github.io/aria/core-aam/core-aam.html
Quick review, seems good, and we implement a good chunk of it per the implementation report. * https://w3c.github.io/test-results/core-aam/ tl;dr: Support Recommendation with comment Comment: Per the implementation report, it's hard to tell if there is at least one implementation of each mapping (on any platform). The highest % reported is 97% of mappings on a platform: "WebKitGTK on Linux using ATK - DEMONSTRATES IMPLEMENTABILITY status: 97% of mappings successfully implemented (231/237)" Does this mean 3% of the mappings are unimplemented anywhere? or are those 6 mappings implemented on other platforms? We request clarification in the implementation report as to whether each mapping is implemented on at least one platform, and if not (if there are mappings unimplemented anywhere, we would be concerned (not FO), that there may be a few mappings being standardized that did exit reasonable common W3C CR exit criteria expectations. > Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.1 > https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.1/ > https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/aria/aria.html Similarly quick review, seems good (aside from the RDF/OWL point already made), and we implement a good chunk of it per the implementation report. * https://w3c.github.io/test-results/wai-aria/ tl;dr: Support Recommendation with comment Comment: (as dbaron noted) > The one comment I'd be inclined to make (based on feedback in that > email thread) is: > > We're not entirely sure what to make of the RDF/OWL bits of this > specification, which seem to be non-normative but also part of a > plan for future extensibility. There's a lot of RDFisms sprinkled throughout the spec, normative parts thereof. It doesn't seem like the RDFisms are essential to implementation (which is why I presume the RDF/OWL references are in the Informative section at the end). The only thing I would add to the comment would be a stronger note of concern. Something like: We are concerned that the many inline references to RDF/OWL bits in normative text imply (perhaps without intending to) a need to implement RDF/OWL processing to implement the specification. Please consider adding a note stating that RDF/OWL processing is not essential to interoperably implementing the specification, we believe such a note would help implementers of the specification. [If there is such a note / disclaimer already, I missed it in my review of the spec] > Deadline for responses: today (oops!) > > Normally I'd ask for comments, but there isn't really much time > since this slipped through until I was sent email about it recently. > But I could still incorporate feedback in the next few hours. The above are the only time-sensitive feedback items. > (These are specs that we implement.) re: specs that we implement, for Firefox Platform Dev: Two things: 1. Do we have an Intent to Implement / Ship for the full testable feature set of these specifications? (I couldn't find any such "Intent" "ARIA" emails in dev-platform, but I may have missed it). If not, could the implementing team please send after-the-fact either/both Intent to Implement / Intent to Ship emails for both specs to dev-platform? 2. Assuming we have such intent, do we have bugs filed in Bugzilla to implement the remaining testable features of both specifications? (to get the following %s to 100) >From Core Mappings report above: Firefox on Linux using ATK: 79% of mappings successfully implemented (188/237) Firefox on macOS using AX API:: 41% of mappings successfully implemented (84/205) Firefox on Windows using MSAA + IAccessible2: 75% of mappings successfully implemented (181/242) (or do we have documented somewhere reasoning why we won't implement to 100% - and if so, do we have problems with some of the features?) >From WAI ARiA report above: no % tallies provided, but lots of red and yellow squares in the FF** columns here: https://w3c.github.io/test-results/wai-aria/all.html Feel free to follow-up to this part (re: specs that we implement) with a reply-with-subject-change to start a new thread as needed. Thanks, Tantek _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
