alexander :surkov (:asurkov) Assignee
	Description • 10 years ago

      No description provided.

	David Bolter [:davidb] (NeedInfo me for attention)
	Comment 1 • 10 years ago

Comment on attachment 8529073 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

Review of attachment 8529073 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

perfecto!

	Trevor Saunders (:tbsaunde)
	Comment 2 • 10 years ago

link to the spec please.

	alexander :surkov (:asurkov) Assignee
	Comment 3 • 10 years ago

(In reply to Trevor Saunders (:tbsaunde) from comment #2)
> link to the spec please.

afaik there's no spec yet, there's discussion [1] and agreement on the feature, since every platform is looking for proper accessibility mapping

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg/2014Nov/0043.html

	Trevor Saunders (:tbsaunde)
	Comment 4 • 10 years ago

(In reply to alexander :surkov from comment #3)
> (In reply to Trevor Saunders (:tbsaunde) from comment #2)
> > link to the spec please.
> 
> afaik there's no spec yet, there's discussion [1] and agreement on the
> feature, since every platform is looking for proper accessibility mapping

agreement between who exactly?  I think adding new APIs should get a fairly careful discussion.

That said I guess I don't really have an objection to this implementation other than not having considered it enough to really over come defaulting to no.

	alexander :surkov (:asurkov) Assignee
	Comment 5 • 10 years ago

(In reply to Trevor Saunders (:tbsaunde) from comment #4)
> (In reply to alexander :surkov from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Trevor Saunders (:tbsaunde) from comment #2)
> > > link to the spec please.
> > 
> > afaik there's no spec yet, there's discussion [1] and agreement on the
> > feature, since every platform is looking for proper accessibility mapping
> 
> agreement between who exactly?

between PFWG members

>  I think adding new APIs should get a fairly
> careful discussion.

It's not really new API, it's new markup that was discussed well I guess, this bug is about implementing the new ARIA feature and it seems IA2_STATE_MODAL is sort of obvious mapping for it, and thus I followed it (David agreed on it btw). If somebody will have concerns about chosen mapping then sure we can revisit it.

	Trevor Saunders (:tbsaunde)
	Comment 6 • 10 years ago

> >  I think adding new APIs should get a fairly
> > careful discussion.
> 
> It's not really new API, it's new markup that was discussed well I guess,

those are more or less the same thing

> this bug is about implementing the new ARIA feature and it seems
> IA2_STATE_MODAL is sort of obvious mapping for it, and thus I followed it
> (David agreed on it btw). If somebody will have concerns about chosen
> mapping then sure we can revisit it.

Well, once something is done that will be either much harder or impossible.

	Marco Zehe (:MarcoZ)
	Comment 7 • 10 years ago

(In reply to Trevor Saunders (:tbsaunde) from comment #6)
> > >  I think adding new APIs should get a fairly
> > > careful discussion.
> > 
> > It's not really new API, it's new markup that was discussed well I guess,
> 
> those are more or less the same thing

Part of the ARIA development has been an implementation in (usually) Firefox before the spec was finalized, as a proof that the theoretical concept actually worked. This was how originally, stuff was being pushed through WHATWG in 2006/2007, and everything else were then fine-tuning and bug fixing that came out of exposure to real-world scenarios and some practical adjustments that lead to ARIA 1.0.

With new features, I'd much rather be at the forefront of things with Firefox again rather than somebody else. I think it's OK to implement this and adjust later if needed. Better us than somebody else. We are leaders in accessibility, not followers.

> > this bug is about implementing the new ARIA feature and it seems
> > IA2_STATE_MODAL is sort of obvious mapping for it, and thus I followed it
> > (David agreed on it btw). If somebody will have concerns about chosen
> > mapping then sure we can revisit it.
> Well, once something is done that will be either much harder or impossible.

History shows that this is very well possible, if clearly documented.

Giving this my blessing.

	David Bolter [:davidb] (NeedInfo me for attention)
	Comment 8 • 10 years ago

I'd much rather have aria-modal used for the modal dialog use case than aria-hidden. It is quite possible the aria-hidden attribute only got its silly super powers (pruning) when people wanted to use to to hide the trees outside the dialog. Maybe one day browsers will implement html:dialog and we can all go home :)

	alexander :surkov (:asurkov) Assignee
	Comment 9 • 10 years ago

I wish bugzilla provided +1 feature, I would use it for Marco's comment.

	Phil Ringnalda (:philor)
	Comment 10 • 10 years ago

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/0b5312cb24e4