- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 19:03:16 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11557 --- Comment #28 from Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3cbug@gmail.com> 2011-05-09 19:03:13 UTC --- As the original bug filer, I completely agree that we should only prohibit roles that really serve no purpose. So if <button role=button aria-pressed=true> will be processed differently from <button aria-pressed=true>, then the role=button should be allowed in that case. Likewise, we should allow redundant roles on new elements like <details> that browsers won't know about yet, because they can be useful in practice. But something like <a role=link href=foo> should raise a validator warning or error, because it means the author misunderstands what role="" does. The validator error message can take the opportunity to explain to the author what role="" actually does, so that they can use it more correctly in the future. So if everyone is okay with this, we just need a list of what roles should be allowed despite being redundant. The current sentence that was left in the WHATWG spec ("Authors must not set the ARIA role and aria-* attributes to values that match the default implicit ARIA semantics defined in the following two tables") is too broad. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 9 May 2011 19:03:18 UTC