[whatwg] Attitude and Direction of the WHATWG
chuck at jumis.com
Wed Mar 2 08:59:17 PST 2011
On 3/2/2011 12:07 AM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 6:52 AM, Charles Pritchard<chuck at jumis.com> wrote:
>> My understanding is that those items are covered by DOM, and WebIDL, which
>> HTML inherits from.
>> There's a bulk of APIs under the "webapps" group, covering much of the rest.
>> I think that HTML spec is primarily a format spec, not an API spec.
> Do you mean you think it /should/ be? The current draft specification
> is clearly a vocabulary plus APIs spec.
Sorry about my poor quality response. You're correct, it's more than a
and does include some APIs; and abstracts a few UI widgets.
>>>> Unfortunately, contenteditable is less accessible to users than it
>>>> should be. I'd like to see that addressed.
>>> Could you elaborate on how it is less accessible than it should be?
>> I can't. But I can give some examples of shortcomings, as the Google word
>> and Microsoft's editor are both quite short of coming anything near desktop
>> word processing.
>> The CK editor is certainly still a great example of pushing it as far as
>> they can.
> These aren't examples of accessibility shortcomings in the spec or
> examples of accessibility shortcomings in products but just examples
> of products you think have accessibility shortcomings.
> Can you give concrete examples?
>> My understanding is that rich text editing is really handed off to the UA
>> (reading that from the ARIA
>> spec under the Rich Text editor control), and that it's usability is a UA
>> issue, not a scripting/format issue.
> Are you saying there's nothing the HTML spec can do to improve matters?
> If UAs applied UUAG2 to their implementations of contenteditable, would that
> address the problems to which you allude? Or is UAAG2 missing some important
I'll work on it in the future.
More information about the whatwg