23421 2013-10-02 05:14:03 +0000 HTML-AAPI doc should be a living document 2013-10-02 17:28:04 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG HTML a11y APIs (editor: Steve Faulkner, Cynthia Shelly) unspecified PC All NEW a11y P2 normal --- 1 jcraig faulkner.steve lwatson mike public-html-admin public-html-bugzilla public-html-wg-issue-tracking sideshowbarker+html-a11y-api oldest_to_newest 94148 0 jcraig 2013-10-02 05:14:03 +0000 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I worry that using the spec-track approach for external API mappings while only ensure that the document is immediately out of date at the time it is published.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. 94168 1 faulkner.steve 2013-10-02 10:56:02 +0000 (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 out of date at the time it is published.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 94188 2 jcraig 2013-10-02 17:28:04 +0000 (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 out of date at the time it is published.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.