RE: aria-describedat

Hi folks,

It might be helpful to look at the content model  developed by the DIAGRAM project. Go to:

http://www.diagramcenter.org

Best
George


-----Original Message-----
From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis [mailto:bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 5:38 PM
To: Leif Halvard Silli
Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger; W3C WAI-XTECH; w3c-wai-pf@w3.org; public-html-a11y@w3.org; laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com; George Kerscher; david.bolter@gmail.com; jbrewer@w3.org; faulkner.steve@gmail.com; mike@w3.org
Subject: Re: aria-describedat

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Leif Halvard Silli
<xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:
>> The name should reflect the fact that it is a URL. e.g.
>> "aria-descriptionurl" or "aria-describeaturl" would be better.
>
> If one were to pick @describedaturl, then why not, just as well, change
> @describedby to @describedBYidrefs ?

I think "descriptionids" would have been better, but I suspect UAs
have to implement "aria-describedby" for compatibility with existing
content.

> I think @describedat is reasonably good - it fits the current naming pattern.

I'd welcome a break from the existing pattern of naming things confusingly.

I don't think minting new names for existing features is prerequisite
for choosing better names for new features.

> Also, the name is probably not the only reason why @longdesc so often has had invalid content:

I didn't say it was. I think we should take especial effort to avoid
contributing factors to @longdesc's poisoning, whether those factors
were minor or major.

--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis

Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 03:17:06 UTC