[Bug 25614] @required and @disabled need to be moved to the Strong native semantics table

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25614

--- Comment #2 from steve faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to James Craig from comment #0)
> Follow-on to:
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23377#c6
> 
> @required and @disabled need to be listed in the Strong native semantic
> table as they are the exact same semantic as @aria-required and
> @aria-disabled. If an author does not want the default style of
> html:*[required], he or she should override it with a CSS style block. If an
> author does not want the default handling of a form that contains elements
> with @required specified, he or she should fix it with a custom submit
> handler. 
> 
> As it is, we've got conflicting boolean values that still need to be
> resolved by browsers heuristics. That's an anti-pattern.

@disabled is in the strong semantics table. 

@aria-required is not as its false/absent state can be overridden by authors

I think this is sensible because there is a common pattern of declaring the
required state of a control via the use of text/image/symbol 

name * <input>

name (required) <input>

name <img alt="required"> <input>

Other considerations:

aria-required does not equal HTML5 required:

Setting required on a control sets the state of the control to required and
invalid the equivalent of:

<input aria-required=true aria-invalid=true> 

Setting required invokes UI behaviour:
auto validation
auto display  of error message(s) 

The above can be suppressed via the use of the formnovalidate attribute [3]

Why would we want to force developers to add required to explicitly indicate to
AT users that a particular control is required?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Sunday, 11 May 2014 19:42:44 UTC