W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2011

Re: request to the HTML WG Chairs on ISSUE-129 aria-mapping

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:42:15 -0700
Cc: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <000D081D-2303-49F1-82A0-52507B0465CE@apple.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

On Apr 11, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> 
>> A further comment. It seems that one of the points of disagreement is 
>> over how this text in the Change Proposal is to be interpreted:
>> 
>> * H1 to H6 allowed roles: button, checkbox, link, menuitem, 
>> menuitemcheckbox, menuitemradio, option, presentation, radio, slider, 
>> spinbutton, scrollbar, tab or treeitem.
>> 
>> This doesn't mention a default role, unlike the text for "h1 to h6 
>> element that does have an hgroup ancestor". One could plausibly 
>> interpret this as:
>> 
>> (a) Change h1-h6 to have no default role
>> (b) Make no changes to default role for h1-h6
>> 
>> From the test alone, it is not completely clear which was intended. From 
>> your statements, it seems that your intent was (b). And it seems that 
>> Ian agrees that (b) would have been a technically superior choice.
> 
> (b) would be self-contradictory (making the default non-conforming).


1) There doesn't seem to be a technical reason that the implied default value must also be allowed as an explicit value. So I don't see the contradiction.

2) This would be inconsistent with the practice for other elements, where the implied default is also allowed as an explicit value. It would be fine to use a follow-up bug to address this, if there is consensus that this is inconsistency is undesirable.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Monday, 11 April 2011 22:42:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:24 UTC