29180 2015-10-06 19:20:19 +0000 Remove msaa+UIA Express column 2016-09-07 02:02:18 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified ARIA HTML AAM 1.0 PC All RESOLVED FIXED P2 major --- 1 schwer jason clown cyns dbolter jason surkov.alexander oldest_to_newest 123538 0 schwer 2015-10-06 19:20:19 +0000 no further development is going on for IE where this would apply. 123540 1 surkov.alexander 2015-10-06 19:58:46 +0000 MSAA+UIExpress is UIA implementation in Firefox 123822 2 clown 2015-10-21 14:47:52 +0000 FWIW, the UIA+Express columns were removed from the mapping tables in the core-aam [1]. The associated tracker item is "ACTION-1717: Remove the MSAA plus UIA express column" [2], and is waiting Cynthia's confirmation. [1] http://w3c.github.io/aria/core-aam/core-aam.html#changelog (2nd bullet) [2] https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/actions/1717 124818 3 jason 2016-02-03 00:21:24 +0000 Alex, What's the situation with Firefox and UIA? Given that both CORE-AAM and ACCNAME-AAM have removed the MSAA+UIA Express columns [1], do you have any objections to us doing the same for HTML-AAM? The suite of AAMs should be consistent in the APIs they address, IMO. Getting rid of this column would also solve some other bugs, or at least one, bug 16629. [1] https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/actions/1717 124840 4 surkov.alexander 2016-02-04 16:04:12 +0000 (In reply to Jason Kiss from comment #3) > Alex, > > What's the situation with Firefox and UIA? Currently we stick with a plan which is to build UIA on top of MSAA. I'm not sure though what are current MS recommendations about UIA implementation. So no active development so far, however sooner or later I think the project gets more attention. > Given that both CORE-AAM and > ACCNAME-AAM have removed the MSAA+UIA Express columns [1], do you have any > objections to us doing the same for HTML-AAM? I'm not quite sure what's reasoning behind the removal of that column taking into account Firefox has some implementation for it, but I would say that HTML and CORE specs should be in sync. > The suite of AAMs should be consistent in the APIs they address, IMO. agree > Getting rid of this column would also solve some other bugs, or at least > one, bug 16629. is a root problem here because MSAA+IA2, MSAA+UIA and UIA columns may be in conflict? 124866 5 clown 2016-02-05 16:44:41 +0000 (Book keeping) There is a reference to a tracker action in comment 3, but those tracker items have migrated to the new ARIA tracker. Here it the new url: https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/track/actions/1717 Also, Cynthia has a related action-1706 to write up a statement regarding the "deprecation" of UIA Express mappings. It's currently in progress: https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/track/actions/1706 125367 6 dbolter 2016-03-04 15:43:36 +0000 I guess the plan here is blocked on https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/track/actions/1706 (Alex?) Cynthia there are no MS current plans to un-support UIA Express in the near future correct? Personally I don't mind whether this blocks the 1.1 spec or not I'm more interested in making good decisions WRT gecko support. I also think I'm fine with just putting Express notes in the main UIA column if that makes sense. 127325 7 jason 2016-09-07 02:02:18 +0000 Moved relevant info from msaa+uiaexpress columns into msaa+ia2 columns, and deleted msaa+uiaexpress columns from both tables. See GitHub branch merge [1] and related issue [2]. [1] https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/429 [2] https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/404