There's still http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/dom.html#aria-role-attribute which seems to contradict this.

(In reply to Ian 'Hixie' Hickson from comment #1)
> There's still
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/dom.html#aria-role-attribute
> which seems to contradict this.

Yes the role and aria* attribute definitions are still in HTML

As I said
"w3c html now points to ARIA in HTML for document conformance requirements and
HTML accessibility API mapping spec for user agent implementation requirements" 

If you look at what was the w3c ARIA section, it is now pretty much gutted.

This bug was intended as a heads up to indicate that actively updated specs for the bulk of the stuff that was formerly in the w3C HTML aria section, and still in whatwg html, is now available. If you want to keep the out of date content in  whatwg that's your prerogative.

It may be useful to know that the content of ARIA in HTML [1] is not a fork of WHATWG ARIA section, a few bits of the wording are the same, but it is essentially a rewrite.

Likewise the mapping requirements in the Acc API spec [2] are a complete rewrite.

I left section 3.2.7.3.1 ARIA Role Attribute and 3.2.7.3.2 State and Property Attributes in the w3c html spec as I didn't see them fitting in either of the specs that replace the rest of the content of the ARIA section.

If you have any ideas on where would be a better place for them than in HTML i am all ears.

[1]https://specs.webplatform.org/html-aria/webspecs/master/
[2http://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/html-aam/html-aam.html

Is it worthwhile me submitting a PR for this?

Yeah I think so. Though it might take a while to review since this would be a fairly substantive change as I understand it.

IMHO it would be a win all around at this point if we could just replace the entire "Annotations for assistive technology products (ARIA)" section in the HTML spec https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/dom.html#wai-aria with a reference to the "ARIA in HTML" spec http://w3c.github.io/html-aria/

Some relevant supporting evidence I'd like to provide from my point of view as a developer of the HTML checker is: For all ARIA-related checks I've been adding in the checker over the last couple few years, I've been implementing from the requirements in the current "ARIA in HTML" spec at the same time as those requirements have been getting actively developed and iterated on and refined, and not from the older requirements in the HTML spec itself.

So for that reason among other reasons, as I said, I think it'd be a win all around if we could replace that older "Annotations for assistive technology products (ARIA)" section with a reference to the current "ARIA in HTML" spec, which Steve has already been actively maintaining for quite a while now as a living document.

And if anybody believes there are deficiencies in that "ARIA in HTML" spec that would make it less than suitable to be referenced from the HTML spec, I think we should work to get those deficiencies fixed by submitting PRs against the "ARIA in HTML" source.

(In reply to Michael[tm] Smith from comment #6)
> IMHO it would be a win all around at this point if we could just replace the
> entire "Annotations for assistive technology products (ARIA)" section in the
> HTML spec https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/dom.html#wai-aria with a
> reference to the "ARIA in HTML" spec http://w3c.github.io/html-aria/
> 
> Some relevant supporting evidence I'd like to provide from my point of view
> as a developer of the HTML checker is: For all ARIA-related checks I've been
> adding in the checker over the last couple few years, I've been implementing
> from the requirements in the current "ARIA in HTML" spec at the same time as
> those requirements have been getting actively developed and iterated on and
> refined, and not from the older requirements in the HTML spec itself.
> 
> So for that reason among other reasons, as I said, I think it'd be a win all
> around if we could replace that older "Annotations for assistive technology
> products (ARIA)" section with a reference to the current "ARIA in HTML"
> spec, which Steve has already been actively maintaining for quite a while
> now as a living document.
> 
> And if anybody believes there are deficiencies in that "ARIA in HTML" spec
> that would make it less than suitable to be referenced from the HTML spec, I
> think we should work to get those deficiencies fixed by submitting PRs
> against the "ARIA in HTML" source.

It also needs to point to  HTML Accessibility API Mappings 1.0 http://w3c.github.io/aria/html-aam/html-aam.html as the currently the ARIA section defines some implementation mappings, that are out of sync with reality, in terms of ARIA semantics

I agree with comment 6 and would love a PR from you, Steve. Maybe try to break it down into multiple PRs, gutting each section by section, to make it easier to review?

That said, the process for building locally [1] is still more arduous than I would like. (I haven't even been able to get wattsi building on Windows at all.) So far we've been reviewing PRs by doing the builds ourselves before merging; I don't think any of the other contributors have a build system set up. (Maybe MikeSmith does though, he's a resourceful guy.)

So yeah, I'd like to get the tooling in a slightly better place to make it easier for you to develop a PR locally, instead of just doing source edits and hoping it works when we build. Fair warning that if you try right now it might be painful :)

[1]: https://github.com/whatwg/html-build#setup

One reason why this might not be a good idea is that if we are to dig down into custom elements it would make sense for ARIA to be tightly coupled with the rest of HTML. It would simplify defining APIs quite a bit.

It also seems weird to have a bunch of HTML attributes not even be mentioned in HTML.

(In reply to Anne from comment #9)
> One reason why this might not be a good idea is that if we are to dig down
> into custom elements it would make sense for ARIA to be tightly coupled with
> the rest of HTML. It would simplify defining APIs quite a bit.
> 
> It also seems weird to have a bunch of HTML attributes not even be mentioned
> in HTML.

Are you suggesting the acc implementation requirements for HTML attributes and elements be merged into the HTML standard?

Maybe. The way I envision it there's four layers, from low to high:

* The actual low-level accessibility layer; varies per platform
* The concept low-level accessibility layer; specification device
* The low-level accessibility API; hooks into the concept, useful for custom elements
* role / aria-* attributes; hook into the API/concept

The bottom three layers seem in scope for HTML/DOM.

Anne, I can understand that breakdown, and it seems pretty nice. However, I think Steve's proposed changes would be a big improvement over the current situation where the spec does not match reality, and until we have someone with the time and motivation to implement such a layered system in HTML (maybe even Steve?), aligning with his specced model makes sense at least as an intermediate system.

https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/109

*** Bug 25990 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***