Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Remove assistive technologies reference from normative conformance comment #1892

Closed
cookiecrook opened this issue Mar 23, 2023 · 3 comments · Fixed by #1908
Closed

Remove assistive technologies reference from normative conformance comment #1892

cookiecrook opened this issue Mar 23, 2023 · 3 comments · Fixed by #1908
Assignees
@spectranaut @ariellalgilmore @andreancardona
Labels
editorial a change to an example, note, spelling, grammar, or is related to publishing or the repo

Comments

@cookiecrook
Copy link
Contributor

cookiecrook commented Mar 23, 2023 •
edited

"3. Conformance" section states:

Normative sections provide requirements that authors, user agents and assistive technologies MUST follow for an implementation to conform to this specification.

But there are no normative MUST requirements for assistive technologies in the spec, because assistive technologies are outside the scope of the W3C. I propose assistive technologies be removed from this sentence as such:

- Normative sections provide requirements that authors, user agents and assistive technologies MUST follow for an implementation to conform to this specification.
+ Normative sections provide requirements that authors and user agents MUST follow for an implementation to conform to this specification.

It's possible MUST should be lowercased and/or changed to should here too, since the sentence itself is not an RFC-2119 statement.

https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.2/#conformance
@cookiecrook cookiecrook added editorial a change to an example, note, spelling, grammar, or is related to publishing or the repo and removed editorial a change to an example, note, spelling, grammar, or is related to publishing or the repo labels Mar 23, 2023
@cookiecrook
Copy link
Contributor Author

cookiecrook commented Mar 23, 2023 •
edited

There are some "ATs SHOULD" statements regarding landmark navigation and Windows-style SR keyboard interception, which are probably harmless, but are technically outside the scope of the ARIA charter and the W3C. Should all these (including the "ATs MAY" statements) be rephrased as Informative?

@spectranaut spectranaut self-assigned this Mar 29, 2023
@spectranaut
Copy link
Contributor

spectranaut commented Mar 29, 2023 •
edited

I agree they should be rephrased

@spectranaut spectranaut mentioned this issue Mar 29, 2023
Merged
@pkra
Copy link
Member

pkra commented Mar 30, 2023

#1901 has fixed a few of these but more remain.

@andreancardona andreancardona mentioned this issue Apr 3, 2023
Merged
@andreancardona andreancardona added the editorial a change to an example, note, spelling, grammar, or is related to publishing or the repo label Apr 3, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@spectranaut spectranaut

@ariellalgilmore ariellalgilmore

@andreancardona andreancardona

Labels
editorial a change to an example, note, spelling, grammar, or is related to publishing or the repo
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

editorial: assistive technologies update andreancardona/aria
5 participants
@cookiecrook @pkra @spectranaut @ariellalgilmore @andreancardona