On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 02:16:29 +0100, Charles Pritchard <chuck@...>
>> Warnings are generally not useful. Either something is fine and we
>> support it, or it's wrong and we should alert the author. I think "must"
>> is very much the appropriate requirement level here.
> From the implementation-side, the spec is wrong, it ranks native HTML
> semantics above ARIA DOM semantics.
You're confusing author conformance requirements with UA conformance
> As a "best practices" note, it seems overly optimistic. There are
> situations with AT navigation where role conflicts do occur and/or
> redundancy in tagging is helpful.
Do you have concrete examples?
> I don't believe it is appropriate for HTML to place restrictions on ARIA
> DOM. It's does not reflect implementations.
It does not affect implementations at all.
> The HTML spec should only specify what the default mappings are for HTML
> elements to ARIA.
> Authors may be advised to test AT software with their product.
> This statement is more in line with practice: "Authors must test
> accessibility tree as part of development and usage of ARIA semantics.".
That's not machine checkable so less likely to have an effect at all.