W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2005

RE: Tests 186, 187, 188, 189,

From: Sebastiano Nutarelli (IWA/HWG) <snutarelli@webaccessibile.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 02:35:09 -0400
Message-Id: <200508110235.AA182255948@webaccessibile.org>
To: "WCAG WG mailing list" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Ok, now we're talking about the same thing :)
I'm not agree me too to reject David MacDonald proposal about HTML test n 187, if label it's correct it could be a benefit have more than one label associated with the same input.
Anyway it don't directly violate any specification..

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date:  Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:48:25 +0200

>-----Original Message-----
>From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
>Of Yvette Hoitink
>Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 6:42 PM
>To: 'WCAG WG mailing list'
>Subject: RE: Tests 186, 187, 188, 189,
>We're not talking about having multiple identical IDs, but having multiple
>labels that belong to the same ID. So you wouldn't have the same ID twice,
>you only refer to it twice. For example:
><label for="input1">First label describing option 1</label><input
>id="input1" type="radio" value="1"><label for="input1">Second label
>describing option 1</label>. This does not violate HTML spec and can have
>accessibility benefits.
>Roberto Scano:
>Ok... I add myself to bugzilla (translation: I need holidays :D)
>Touche :)

Sebastiano Nutarelli 
IWA/HWG Member 
W3C WCAG Working Group Member 
E-mail: snutarelli@webaccessibile.org
Received on Thursday, 11 August 2005 06:37:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:55 UTC