it should have been a part of bug 835121 (ARIA 268 test failure: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pfwg/raw-file/default/ARIA/1.0/tests/test-files/roles-properties-supported-inherited/roles-properties-supported-inherited-columnheader-aria-readonly-false.html)

Comment on attachment 733213 [details] [diff] [review] patch yeah, I should have thought of this :(

Comment on attachment 733213 [details] [diff] [review] patch [Approval Request Comment] Bug caused by (feature/regressing bug #): 835121 User impact if declined: Half-baked WAI-ARIA 1.0 compliance in this area. Testing completed (on m-c, etc.): Yes Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): None. String or IDL/UUID changes made by this patch:None.

(In reply to Marco Zehe (:MarcoZ) from comment #4) > Bug caused by (feature/regressing bug #): 835121 technically speaking it wasn't a regression from bug 835121

What version is ARIA compliance meant to go into first? Bug 343213 doesn't make that clear. Also, does comment 5 mean to imply that this isn't a regression because ARIA is a new feature? Or is there another regressing bug?

(In reply to Alex Keybl [:akeybl] from comment #6) > What version is ARIA compliance meant to go into first? Bug 343213 doesn't > make that clear. version of what? Firefox? I think we didn't even finish. > Also, does comment 5 mean to imply that this isn't a regression because ARIA > is a new feature? Or is there another regressing bug? sort of, it's not a regression because we never did it this way (i.e we never exposed these states on these elements). This bug and bug 343213 are needed for the feature completeness.

Thanks, I was trying to understand the criticality of fixing this in FF21. We'll approve for uplift given the low risk profile, but don't feel this regression warrants tracking due to the low user impact.

Pushed on Surkov's behalf: https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-aurora/rev/c417d27abcb7