W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Current PFWG thinking on ARIA integration in host languages

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:30:06 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0908181130y6cedff71gcc80f745d2378263@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
I'm gonna boil down your email just to make things simpler for me;
please correct me if I get something wrong.  Your current ideas are:

1. Host languages can define implicit ARIA 'state', 'property', or
'role' semantics for their elements.
2. If an element has an implicit ARIA 'state' or 'property' semantic,
authors SHOULD NOT specify an ARIA version.  (Invisible metadata is
evil, and should be avoided in favor of visible metadata whenever
possible.)
3. If there is a conflict in a 'state' or 'property' semantic between
ARIA and the host language's implicit semantics, the host language
wins.
3. If there is a conflict in a 'role' semantic between ARIA and the
host language's implicit semantics, ARIA wins. (This is to allow
authors to fully repurpose elements in ways not anticipated by the
host language.)
5. Host languages can define 'strong' implicit ARIA 'role' semantics.
These still lose when put in conflict with an explicit ARIA 'role'
semantic, but such conflicts can be flagged as an error by a
conformance checker.

Is this all correct?

If so, sounds good to me.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 18:31:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:43 GMT