Re: Which Yelp version for 2.12.0?

[Bill Haneman <Bill Haneman Sun COM>]

Elijah:

I *did* reply to Shaun about yelp a11y.  I have really been swamped, and 
even though this was at the top of my list of things to do for 2.12, I 
have not yet been able to confirm what the current state of affairs is.  
Anyone interested in doing so can test yelp a11y with the gecko backend 
against the a11y regression test suite a.k.a. "sanity test suite" [1] 
and report back with status.  It's a fixable problem, I am sure, but 
it's less certain who has the time to fix it.

regards,

Bill

[1] http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gap/sanity-testing/index.html

Elijah Newren wrote:

> On 8/23/05, Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org> wrote:
>  
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > (not sure if I should send this on d-d-l, so I'm not doing it for
> > now :-))
> >
> > Yelp has a critical/showstopper bug [1]: "Help browser content is
> > inaccessible". It's still not clear if it's still the case with the
> > latest Mozilla code.
> >
> > If it's now accessible, then great, we can use Yelp 2.11.x/2.12.0. But
> > if it's not, what should we do? Do we still want to wait for Mozilla and
> > stay with Yelp 2.10.0? Or not?
> >    
>
> Yelp 2.10.0 was not based on yelp 2.9 but rather on 2.6 for the same
> reasons (2.7 & 2.8 were never created due to gnome-doc-utils not being
> far enough along and yelp CVS at the time depended on it).  While
> fixing those accessibility issues is important, I think we can't hold
> up yelp indefinitely due to those issues[1].  If it's a serious enough
> issue, I'd suggest those interested do the work to make yelp-current
> and yelp-2.6/yelp-2.10.0 parallel installable and write a little
> wrapper program that keys off the appropriate gconf setting to launch
> the correct version (which I also suggested last release cycle[2],
> though this time I'm not suggesting those that want yelp 2.11 do it
> but rather those who want yelp-2.6/yelp-2.10.0) Further, as we've been
> releasing with yelp 2.11 so far this cycle and no one has brought up
> the issue (though Shaun did try to find out if accessibility issues
> were a problem and got no response[3]), I'd really hate to revert at
> this late in the cycle.
>
> Just my $0.02; others please feel free to weigh in.
>
> Cheers,
> Elijah
>
> [1] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2005-February/msg00100.html
> [2] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2005-February/msg00064.html
> [3] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-accessibility-list/2005-July/msg00013.html
>