W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > November 2013

[Bug 23378] ARIA: Strong Native Semantics table should defined implicit non-required state on form elements (Currently defines required state, but not the implicit inverse)

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:18:04 +0000
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-23378-3290-z5WXHFFIYq@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
           Keywords|CR                          |
         Whiteboard|                            |ARIA

--- Comment #2 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> ---
In one of the ancestors of this bug, steve points out that it's reasonable to
have an element that's not marked as required="" to be marked as
aria-required="" because the element might be labeled in prose as required even
though it isn't required="", since the semantic of ARIA's 'required' is merely
informative to the user, while required="" implies UA behaviour.

The contrary doesn't make sense.

So required="" should strongly imply aria-required=true (and disallow not
having aria-required or saying aria-required=false), and the lack of required
should only weakly imply aria-required=false (not disallow setting

This, as far as I can tell, is what the WHATWG spec says. (Note that the W3C
spec has forked from this and seems to be bogus now, e.g. pointing to the wrong
definition of "required" on the HTML side, having strong ARIA semantics in the
weak ARIA semantics table, unnecessarily setting aria-required to its default,
etc. The same mess seems to afflict aria-hidden for some reason.)

You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2013 21:18:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:36 UTC