W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > October 2012

[Bug 19277] Relationship and precedence of hidden="" and display:none should be clarified/defined

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 15:16:28 +0000
Message-Id: <E1TK9dc-0003gz-JM@jessica.w3.org>
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org

--- Comment #6 from John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> 2012-10-05 15:16:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > (small quibble: there is no hidden="" in HTML5 that I am aware of)
> You link to it yourself:
> > http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/single-page.html#the-hidden-attribute)

Correct, and that sections states that @hidden attribute is a boolean attribute
where it's presence indicates "true" and its absence is the equivalent of

However it is never written as hidden="true/false" (as the HTML5 attribute),
thus the small quibble.

> The spec says "User agents should not render elements that have the hidden
> attribute specified." and the rendering section says display:none.
> >    "What happens if the author changes to display:block but leaves @hidden
> > set?" 
> Then it overrides the declaration in the rendering section but the requirement
> "User agents should not render elements that have the hidden attribute
> specified." still applies.

We seem to have arrived at the same conclusion, but for different reasons.

> > ...can be found with this statement: "The user agent is expected to force the
> > 'display' property of noscript elements for whom scripting is enabled to
> > compute to 'none', irrespective of CSS rules." 
> What the spec says about <noscript> has no relevance at all to hidden="".

(again, there is NO hidden="", it is @hidden, as in <div hidden
id="ScreenReadersOnly">Only for screen reader users</div>. This may seem to be
a pedantic observation, but can we as experts at least get things correct?

I was focused on the final part of that statement: "...irrespective of CSS
rules", which led me to conclude that the stronger semantic of "hidden" will
continue to apply, and that "the user agent is required to force" that concept.

To be very clear, I have never been a supporter of this idea, but given that it
has been adopted, I am working in good faith to get it right for all users,
disabled or otherwise. If Opera and Mozilla are now concerned that this is
introducing a number of rendering and interop/compatibility issues, the next
step is to ask the Chairs to re-open Issue 204 based on that new evidence and
ask to have the decision overturned. 

I for one would not oppose that effort.

Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Friday, 5 October 2012 15:16:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:31 UTC