"ARIA required context role" and "ARIA required owned elements" (ff89c9 / bc4a75): Update note on DPUB due to upcoming changes in 1.1

[Jym77]

The inapplicable example about ARIA DPUB role was failing the requirement because the doc-biblioentry role was not owned by its required doc-bibliography. This resulted as implementation considering the ARIA DPUB module (such as Alfa) to be rejected as they were failing this example.

Closes issue(s):

• N/A

Need for Final Call:
This will require a 1 week Final Call (updating an example)

---

Pull Request Etiquette

When creating PR:

• Make sure you're requesting to pull a branch (right side) to the develop branch (left side).

After creating PR:

• Add yourself (and co-authors) as "Assignees" for PR.
• Add label to indicate if it's a Rule, Definition or Chore.
• Link the PR to any issue it solves. This will be done automatically by referencing the issue at the top of this comment in the indicated place.
• Optionally request feedback from anyone in particular by assigning them as "Reviewers".

When merging a PR:

• Close any issue that the PR resolves. This will happen automatically upon merging if the PR was correctly linked to the issue, e.g. by referencing the issue at the top of this comment.

How to Review And Approve

• Go to the “Files changed” tab
• Here you will have the option to leave comments on different lines.
• Once the review is completed, find the “Review changes” button in the top right, select “Approve” (if you are really confident in the rule) or "Request changes" and click “Submit review”.
• Make sure to also review the proposed Final Call period. In case of disagreement, the longer period wins.

[WilcoFiers]

This should not be changed. The point of this example is to demonstrate that "owned by" as used in ARIA means any descendant, not just the child. This example comes directly from the DPUB ARIA spec:

https://www.w3.org/TR/dpub-aria-1.0/#doc-biblioentry

This confusion about "owned by" including all descendants, and not just the children and direct references of aria-owns is a known issue in ARIA. See: w3c/aria#1161, w3c/aria#748.

[Jym77]

🙈 That example has so many problems I want to unsee it…

Fortunately (maybe), doc-biblioentry is deprecated in DPUB-ARIA 1.1 (https://w3c.github.io/dpub-aria/#doc-biblioentry) precisely because of the wonkyness it creates with the list role (w3c/dpub-aria#15 and w3c/dpub-aria#22). This is very recent changes!

I guess this example should be completely revamped. As far as I can tell, there is no more required context roles in DPUB-ARIA 1.1. I don't think it is a good idea to keep an example showing a known problem in the specs which is already fixed in the next version.

If the point of the example is to show the "descendant" meaning of "owned by", we need to find a non DPUB example.

If the point of the example is to show that DPUB roles are ignored, we can take any, but they have no required context role…

Maybe we should update the Background note saying that DPUB-ARIA 1.1 does not have any required context role (like Graphics ARIA) which justifies our choice to restrict ourselves to ARIA 1.1 roles.

[Jym77]

I've updated the background explaining why we focus on ARIA. Now saying that DPUB 1.1 has no role with required context role. Copied that note to "required owned element" rule where the same thing happen. Essentially, the "unresolved issues" that this note mentioned have been resolved by deprecating the offending elements.

The example has been updated accordingly.

Dismissing all reviews, since this is a significant change of scope.

Significant changes.

Significant changes.

Adapted to DPUB 1.1

[WilcoFiers]

DPUB-ARIA 1.1 hasn't even made it to first draft yet. I don't think we should be referencing it.

[WilcoFiers]

I think this is getting ahead of things, and I don't think the new example is a proper replacement of the current one.

Example fails accessibility requirement and should be killed anyway

[Jym77]

Final Call ends on November 4.

[Jym77]

Final Call has ended. Merging.