499917 - take into account aria-owns when calculating group attributes

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: Disability Access APIs, defect)

Description

[alexander :surkov (:asurkov)]

see for some details: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Accessibility/TreeGrid#Object_attributes,
also see ARIA spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-practices/#relations_owning

"Each child, adopted or natural, should each have the appropriate aria-posinset and aria-setsize properties set consistent with their rendering, if these cannot be determined from the DOM from a direct parsing of the host language. Places where direct parsing does not allow the user agent to determine aria-posinset and aria-setsize are long lists where only the currently visible items are loaded (via Ajax). If the children are re-sorted then the aria-posinset and aria-setsize values should be updated consistent with their visual rendering."

Comment 1

[David Bolter [:davidb] (NeedInfo me for attention)]

Consensus to remove requirement was reached on today's W3C call. Alexander do you want to keep this bug around?

Comment 2

[alexander :surkov (:asurkov)]

Can you outline why they decided to remove the requirement?

Comment 3

[David Bolter [:davidb] (NeedInfo me for attention)]

It should show up in today's W3 notes (not published yet). Note the requirement can be added to ARIA 1.1+ if deemed necessary.

Comment 4

[alexander :surkov (:asurkov)]

(In reply to David Bolter [:davidb] from comment #3)
> It should show up in today's W3 notes (not published yet). 

ok but if you can summarize then it'd be great

> Note the
> requirement can be added to ARIA 1.1+ if deemed necessary.

so no strong reasons to drop it?

Comment 5

[David Bolter [:davidb] (NeedInfo me for attention)]

(In reply to alexander :surkov from comment #4)
> (In reply to David Bolter [:davidb] from comment #3)
> > It should show up in today's W3 notes (not published yet). 
> 
> ok but if you can summarize then it'd be great

It was discussed last week (with Rich), and briefly again this week. The bottom line is that it wasn't felt that we need to push for browser implementation and in the meantime block ARIA 1.0.

> 
> > Note the
> > requirement can be added to ARIA 1.1+ if deemed necessary.
> 
> so no strong reasons to drop it?

In the end it is simply punted to ARIA 1.1. See "agreement to add Issue-612 to ARIA-1.1" here http://www.w3.org/2013/10/22-aapi-minutes.html

So leaving this open makes some sense although it doesn't feel like priority work, until we here a strong need.

Comment 6

[David Bolter [:davidb] (NeedInfo me for attention)]

here/hear - excuse my english ;)

Comment 7

[alexander :surkov (:asurkov)]

Attachment: patch

Comment 8

[Yura Zenevich [:yzen] (please use "needinfo")]

Comment on attachment 8680629 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

Review of attachment 8680629 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

\o/

Comment 9

[Pulsebot]

https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/b8463e268cba

Comment 10

[Carsten Book [:Tomcat]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/b8463e268cba

Comment 11

[Carsten Book [:Tomcat]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-b2g44_v2_5/rev/b8463e268cba

Comment 12

[Carsten Book [:Tomcat]]

removing the b2g 2.5 flag since this commit has been reverted due to an incorrect merge, sorry for the confusion