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

Re: ISSUE-201: Aligning the two change proposals

From: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 13:30:22 -0700
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-id: <m2hatgoext.fsf@eoconnor.apple.com>
Hi Steve,

You wrote:

>> "Each hit region has an associated control, which is either an
>> element or an unbacked region description. You pass in the control
>> when you call addHitRegion()."
>
> to clarify, regions only have a control when they have an associated
> element. so unbacked regions don't have a control right?

No; if you reread the quoted bit above, you'll see that a control is
either an element or an unbacked region description.

> If the list of roles allowed on unbacked regions is constrained to
> those that make sense, then I could live with the rest of the concept.

I'd rather not add an explicit whitelist of allowed roles; instead, I'd
rather the WAI-ARIA spec have some prose describing the sorts of roles
that can be used with such constructs.


Ted
Received on Monday, 9 July 2012 20:30:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 9 July 2012 20:30:52 GMT