- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:54:26 +0100
- To: "Leif Halvard Silli" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: "Richard Schwerdtfeger" <schwer@us.ibm.com>, david.bolter@gmail.com, faulkner.steve@gmail.com, jbrewer@w3.org, "George Kerscher" <kerscher@montana.com>, laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com, mike@w3.org, public-html-a11y@w3.org, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org, "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:03:17 +0100, Leif Halvard Silli
<xn--mlform-iua@målform.no> wrote:
> Charles McCathieNevile, Thu, 22 Mar 2012 10:28:17 +0100:
>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 20:12:29 +0100, Richard Schwerdtfeger
>> <schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> From: Leif Halvard Silli
>>>> THIRDLY: It would be good to clarify that when the URL points to a
>>>> specific fragment, then that fragment - alone - is the long
>>>> description.
>>>>
>>> That makes sense.
>>
>> Except that in HTML that fragment is not certain to be a container
>> (e.g. div, p) - if it is a heading element, you don't get what you
>> wanted. Unless we make a new restriction on how HTML *should* be
>> written.
>
> The same can be said about aria-describedBY, no? Why make
> aria-describedAT any looser?
Sure. But that extra constraint needs to be explicit (it is for
aria-describedby) and there will be a certain proportion of content that
will get it wrong.
cheers
--
Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group
je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 15:55:50 UTC