Re: aria-describedat from Leif Halvard Silli on 2012-03-22 (public-html-a11y@w3.org from March 2012)

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:03:17 +0100
To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, david.bolter@gmail.com, faulkner.steve@gmail.com, jbrewer@w3.org, George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>, laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com, mike@w3.org, public-html-a11y@w3.org, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120322140317156044.d782660b@xn--mlform-iua.no>

Charles McCathieNevile, Thu, 22 Mar 2012 10:28:17 +0100:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 20:12:29 +0100, Richard Schwerdtfeger 
> <schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>>> From: Leif Halvard Silli 
>>> THIRDLY: It would be good to clarify that when the URL points to a
>>> specific fragment, then that fragment - alone - is the long description.
>>> 
>> That makes sense.
> 
> Except that in HTML that fragment is not certain to be a container 
> (e.g. div, p) - if it is a heading element, you don't get what you 
> wanted. Unless we make a new restriction on how HTML *should* be 
> written.

The same can be said about aria-describedBY, no? Why make 
aria-describedAT any looser?
-- 
Leif Halvard Silli

Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 13:04:05 UTC