double check normative and informative references for aria 1.2 #1214
Comments
|
Michael said, it is from respec and adding exclamation point makes the rule as normative, without it, it is informative. @carmacleod will look into the issue. |
|
Also need to check version numbers, if they are in the citation, to make sure they are up to date. |
|
@mcking65 says reference to apg in combobox has a version number |
|
On version numbers, you have the option of doing [[wai-aria-practices]] or [[wai-aria-practices-1.2]]. The first will pick the latest version (that's at Note or Rec), the second will pick that specific version. In general we use non version specific references, except for cross references with the ARIA suite where the version dependencies are more specific where we use specific versions and update them each time we start a new version number. |
|
https://github.com/w3c/respec/wiki/ReSpec-Editor's-Guide#references For a non-normative reference in a normative section use |
|
This issue is more involved than it seemed at first glance (i.e. it's about much more than just making sure APG references are non-normative). So I need to check some assumptions. Anybody who knows any answers, please chime in:
I found 2 places in the ARIA spec that mention "the ARIA suite":
Note that both of those links redirect (should they be updated?) to a WAI-ARIA Overview page, which has some pretty out-of-date content:
I can report issues for the WAI-ARIA Overview page (is anybody watching that repo?), but I think fixing it is beyond the scope of this issue. So, back to my assertion that the version number should be deleted from ALL references to CORE-AAM, ACCNAME, and WAI-ARIA-PRACTICES, the only place in the ARIA spec where I think it makes sense to keep those version numbers (and bump them up to 1.2) is in the list of supporting documents in the Target Audience section. This list uses direct links, not [[references]]. Should it use references as well? |
|
On 13/04/2020 4:16 p.m., Carolyn MacLeod wrote:
This issue is more involved than it seemed at first glance (i.e. it's
about much more than just making sure APG references are
non-normative). So I need to check some assumptions. Anybody who knows
any answers, please chime in:
1.
In the |respecConfig| json at the beginning of the doc,
|accNameURLs|, |coreMappingURLs|, and |practicesURLs| are all
currently at 1.1. I think they all need to be bumped up to 1.2 -
correct?
Yes, these should be updated to the latest version that we want to
reference. They are substituted into links with special class attributes
by the script, to help keep things tied together. I've been meaning to
overhaul this to make it simpler to maintain but haven't sat down to it.
1.
2.
|ariaSpecURLs| in |respecConfig| is empty - is that intentional?
In the ARIA spec, we don't need that value because it's self
referential. In Core-AAM, for example, we would need the ariaSpecURLs
but not the coreMappingURLs.
1.
2.
|doRDFa: '1.1',| is deprecated
<https://github.com/w3c/respec/wiki/doRDFa-(DEPRECATED)>. Shall I
just ignore that for now?
Yeah. I'm not sure what that does / did. Probably it was a switch for an
option that is now just automatic so we could remove it.
1.
2.
CSS3-SELECTORS has moved on to CSS Selectors Level 4
<https://www.w3.org/TR/selectors/>. (Someday, there may or may not
be an actual CSS4
<w3c/csswg-drafts#4770>, but for now, we
should bump up the CSS Selectors version).
Sounds good.
1.
2.
DOM4 should just be DOM.
Agree.
1.
2.
Do we want to bump DPUB-ARIA-1.0 up to DPUB-ARIA-1.1? Or maybe
simply keep it version-less as DPUB-ARIA
<https://w3c.github.io/dpub-aria/>?
I think we should stay versioned, so that years down the road people
following links from old documents will find cross references that have
relevant content. I'm not sure if we've started work on DPub ARIA 1.1,
but once we do we should update that reference.
1.
2.
We should probably keep SVG2 for now (and not change the reference
name to SVG). However, note that there's a normative [SVG2]
reference and an informative [SVG] reference, which oddly pulls in
a link to the latest SVG with mismatched link text for SVG 1.0. We
should probably update our ref to SVG2 (keep normative?), and the
reference database <https://github.com/tobie/specref> should
probably be updated to at least fix the link text. Anybody know
where the [SVG2] reference is defined? I only see SVG1 in our
biblio.js, and SVG10 (alias: SVG) and SVG112 (alias: SVG11) in the
reference database biblio.json.
We should definitely use just one form of the reference (SVG2, not SVG
in this case). We probably don't need the version in our local biblio.js
anymore, we should use the stock one from the reference database. It's
automatically generated so I don't know if we can change the link text.
The data is in https://api.specref.org/bibrefs?refs=SVG2 and should
match information from https://www.w3.org/standards/history/SVG2.
1.
2.
Do we want to update our MSAA, UI-AUTOMATION and UIA-EXPRESS links
so that they are not redirected?
Yes, if there is a good permanent URI.
1.
2.
There's a reference to the previous version of the ARIA spec in
the Abstract <https://w3c.github.io/aria/#abstract> section at the
beginning of the document. The reference is currently being
interpreted as informative. Should I change that to normative
(i.e. using |[[!doc]]|)? Or is the previous version of a spec
considered to be informative after the new normative version is
published?
In the Abstract that should be informative because that's a
non-normative section. If we want a normative reference to the previous
version, we should introduce some wording somewhere in a normative
section that gives us an opportunity for a normative reference.
1.
2.
@michael-n-cooper <https://github.com/michael-n-cooper> said, "In
general we use non version specific references". Currently, all
references to CORE-AAM, ACCNAME, and WAI-ARIA-PRACTICES contain
the 1.1 version number, i.e. CORE-AAM-1.1, ACCNAME-1.1,
WAI-ARIA-PRACTICES-1.1. /*I believe the version number should be
deleted from ALL references to CORE-AAM, ACCNAME, and
WAI-ARIA-PRACTICES in the ARIA spec*/. Please confirm, after
reading the rest of this issue comment.
I keep forgetting what we agree among the editors for this, so I'm not
sure I have an authoritative reply. My take is we should use
version-specific references for cross references between the suite, so
the cross references go to versions that were designed to work together.
In theory, we could eventually have ARIA 1.5, Core-AAM 1.5, AccName 1.2,
DPub-ARIA 1.3 depending on ARIA 1.4, whatever. So having
version-specific cross references keeps things tied together in the way
we intended. However, for references outside the suite, particularly
non-normative references, it's better to use versionless references to
avoid things breaking, which is why we reference just "HTML" now.
This may be something to reconfirm in the editors group though.
1.
2.
@mcking65 <https://github.com/mcking65> Please double-check and
confirm that you want the WAI-ARIA-PRACTICES-1.1 reference in
combobox <https://w3c.github.io/aria/#combobox> (right before the
Characteristics table) to point to the latest, i.e.
WAI-ARIA-PRACTICES with no version (or do you want it to
specifically point to WAI-ARIA-PRACTICES-1.2 forever?).
3.
@michael-n-cooper <https://github.com/michael-n-cooper> also said,
"...except for cross references with the ARIA suite where the
version dependencies are more specific". I am not quite sure which
references count as "cross references with the ARIA suite".
Thoughts on that below:
I define the ARIA suite as the stuff published to TR as part of ARIA,
which include ARIA itself, Core-AAM, AccName, Practices, and the other
extension modules and accessibility API mappings such as dpub-[aria|aam]
etc.
1.
I found 2 places in the ARIA spec that mention "the ARIA suite":
1. "This document is part of the WAI-ARIA suite described in the
WAI-ARIA Overview <http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/aria.php>."
2. "WAI-ARIA 1.2 is a member of the WAI-ARIA 1.2 suite
<https://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/aria> that defines how to expose
semantics of WAI-ARIA and other web content languages to
accessibility APIs."
Note that both of those links redirect (should they be updated?) to a
WAI-ARIA Overview <https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/aria/>
page, which has some pretty out-of-date content:
* it mentions Ajax several times, plus DHTML and HTML 5.1
* it says "WAI-ARIA 1.1 is expected to include only a few changes
from 1.0. [Most potential changes will be considered for WAI-ARIA
2.0.]"
* the current status of WAI-ARIA development FAQ
<https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/faq#update> was last updated in March
2014
* is the WAI-ARIA 1.0 User Agent Implementation Guide
<https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-implementation/> from 2014 still
relevant?
* it needs a whole new WAI-ARIA 1.2 section
I can report issues for the WAI-ARIA Overview page
<https://github.com/w3c/wai-intro-aria/issues> (is anybody watching
that repo?), but I think fixing it is beyond the scope of this issue.
The ARIA overview isn't maintained by the ARIA WG, though I'm supposed
to keep an eye on not letting content fall out of date (obviously
dropped it on that). The repo is watched by Shawn Henry, who works with
the Education and Outreach Working Group.
So, back to my assertion that the version number should be deleted
from ALL references to CORE-AAM, ACCNAME, and WAI-ARIA-PRACTICES, the
*only* place in the ARIA spec where I think it makes sense to keep
those version numbers (and bump them up to 1.2) is in the list of
supporting documents in the Target Audience
<https://w3c.github.io/aria/#target-audience> section. This list uses
direct links, not [[references]]. Should it use references as well?
Technically it's best to use formal references wherever we point to a
doc, though in an introductory section we might opt for easier reading.
Though I think we do want to keep the versioned references so the
pointers across the suite stay valid later when new versions with
potential non backward compatible changes are introduced.
…
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1214 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAPGGK3XBYBY7KXG4B246GTRMNXK3ANCNFSM4LNNK5YQ>.
|
|
PR #1243 addresses the following points:
Note that PR #1243 does not address points |
For instance, noticed today that WAI-ARIA-PRACTICES-1.1 was listed as a normative reference.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: