W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Split Issue 30?

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 16:19:10 -0800
Message-ID: <4F3856FE.8080403@jumis.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org
On 2/12/2012 3:42 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >
>> >  Jonas, you have a different perspective too. That's OK, too. Multiple
>> >  viewpoints are a good thing. We are fleshing out real issues in this
>> >  process.
> It sounds like your only objection to allowing aria-describedby to
> point to @hidden elements is that it will delay publishing a finalized
> HTML5 spec. That is certainly an understandable argument, though given
> the extreme inertia for changing semantics of existing features, I'd
> rather spec the @hidden attribute correction from the beginning, than
> wait to fix it in HTML6.

My comment was intended as: we should wait to break current behavior, 
until HTML6. If you want to consider it like breaking a bone to reset 
it, that's the idea.
The current situation of position, visibility: hidden and display: none 
is well tested, and I am certainly being conservative in my position of 
altering core CSS architecture.

As I understand it, @hidden is a shortcut for display: none, in 
implementation and markup and may be implemented through the css 
selector: [hidden] { display: none; }.

I'm concerned about the structural problems of altering the CSSOM 
behavior display: none.

I'm concerned that encouraging display: none for perceivable content may 
lead to a digital divide for users of older browsers and ATs.

It's certainly possible for @hidden to be decoupled from display: none, 
I don't know what kind of compatibility fallout we'd see.

My objection is that altering display: none may break some strong 
precedents and long standing practices and that @hidden may mean a 
distinction between sighted and non-sighted interfaces. The language 
itself is discriminatory.

While we do say "hidden" or "display"; the effect of those two is very 
specific and technical it's about the side-effects of the object, not 
about visibility. Altering @hidden may make it about visibility.


I have no objections about aria-describedby -- I'd like to see more 
vendor discussion about flowto and describedby.
It's altering the semantics of @hidden that I'm concerned about. I'm 
also concerned about the long-lasting tug of war to maintain <img 
@longdesc>.

Those are three separate issues, that weave in and out of this thread. 
They're connected, because they're part of your proposal. You're trying 
to work with those semantics, and I seem to be rather immovable on 
@hidden and @longdesc.
I think there's a lot of good that can come from focusing on ARIA flow. 
But right now, we're looking at two attributes that I'd rather have left 
alone.

-Charles
Received on Monday, 13 February 2012 00:19:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:44 GMT