This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
All of the Accessibility APIs have changed somewhat since the first draft of the ARIA implementation guide. I worry that using the spec-track approach for external API mappings while only ensure that the document is immediately out of date at the time it is published. I'd recommend making this a living document rather than a spec-track document.
(In reply to James Craig from comment #0) > All of the Accessibility APIs have changed somewhat since the first draft of > the ARIA implementation guide. I worry that using the spec-track approach > for external API mappings while only ensure that the document is immediately > out of date at the time it is published. I'd recommend making this a living > document rather than a spec-track document. Hi james, this is not something that the editors can decide, it needs to be brought up with the PF/HTML wg's. Am unclear as to how a living document concpet fits in with the current document track options available in the W3C, any ideas? Also sounds like the ARIA implementation guide should changed to use a similar approach right? FWIW as i mentioned to you in another place, the always latest and publicly available editors draft [1] is a 'living document' and I would expect implementers to be using it over the periodic WD snapshots [1] http://rawgithub.com/w3c/html-api-map/master/index.html
(In reply to steve faulkner from comment #1) > (In reply to James Craig from comment #0) > > All of the Accessibility APIs have changed somewhat since the first draft of > > the ARIA implementation guide. I worry that using the spec-track approach > > for external API mappings while only ensure that the document is immediately > > out of date at the time it is published. I'd recommend making this a living > > document rather than a spec-track document. > > Hi james, this is not something that the editors can decide, it needs to be > brought up with the PF/HTML wg's. > Am unclear as to how a living document concpet fits in with the current > document track options available in the W3C, any ideas? > > Also sounds like the ARIA implementation guide should changed to use a > similar approach right? I agree, and have proposed the same to the PFWG. > FWIW as i mentioned to you in another place, the always latest and publicly > available editors draft [1] is a 'living document' and I would expect > implementers to be using it over the periodic WD snapshots > > [1] http://rawgithub.com/w3c/html-api-map/master/index.html This is the workaround I've been recommending.