W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator-cvs@w3.org > August 2013

[Bug 22846] Wrong error messages when role attribute is used in <input>

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 13:43:04 +0000
To: www-validator-cvs@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-22846-169-KdICxowMHH@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

--- Comment #5 from steve faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > (In reply to comment #1)
> > > For example, is <input role=dialog> meant to valid? Or <input role=link>?
> > > etc.
> > 
> > As per W3C HTML5 CR, no, since these attributes would conflict with the
> > strong native semantics, violating a requirement in the first sentence of
> > 3.2.7.
> OK, yeah, I had read that sentence previously, and that's one of the
> requirements which the existing implementation in the validator is based on.
> But I'd really prefer it were stating closer to the table that lists what
> the strong native semantics are. I'll talk with Steve about it.
> > For <input type=text> (without a suggestions source element), the
> > only allowed value for role is the default value of textbox.
> I see what you're saying. Because <input role=text> is the only role value
> that doesn't conflict with the strong native semantics of <input>/<input
> type=text>, it isn't disallowed. Again though, I'd really prefer if that
> were stated somewhere more explicitly. I mean, if it's not clear to me after
> having spent many hours refining the ARIA support in the validator, I don't
> think the average Web author has any hope at all of trying to understand
> what the requirements are.
> > > [[
> > > So I think what we are leaning toward is only allowing cases like <button
> > > role=button..> if there is also some other aria-* attribute(s) on the
> > > element; e.g., aria-pressed. 
> > > ]]
> > 
> > This would make things even more complicated, and I don’t see why you would
> > allow the role attribute in such a case if you don’t allow it otherwise.
> I don't really know either. But Steve knows quite a bit and I'm interested
> in hearing what he's thinking about this these days.
> > From what I read between lines, it seems that the odd error message “Element
> > input is missing one or more of the following attributes: type” for <input
> > role=textbox> reflects the idea that role=textbox is allowed on <input> but
> > not for type=text, so the error message is trying to say that the element
> > should have a type attribute with a value other than text.
> That error message isn't really trying to say anything. It's a dumb error
> message -- a generic one emitted by Jing based on just reading the schema
> formalism that tries to capture the base requirements. There are some
> limitations first of all in trying to using any kind of general formalism to
> express this stuff, and even more  limitations in trying to use
> grammar-based schema to express them. One of the biggest downsides is that
> the tools that process those kinds of formalisms can only emit boilerplate
> “Element %s is missing one or more of the following attributes: %s.” error
> messages with element and attribute names plugged in. We don't get to choose
> what the error message says, unless we just allow anything in the grammar
> and then disallow in some post-processing that does enable control over the
> content of error messages. We do that in the validator already some cases.
> This may be a another case where we want to switch to doing it that way.
> > And the error
> > message “Attribute role not allowed on element input at this point” is meant
> > to say that the role attribute with the specific value used in the markup is
> > not allowed when the type attribute has the value text. But the messages are
> > very confusing, and for some reason, different error messages are given
> > about essentially the same situation (type property has the value text, the
> > difference being just in it having that value by default vs. due to explicit
> > type=text attribute).
> That's an artifact of the complexity of the grammar-based schema wer're
> using and the relatively poor error message that Jing emits. I may be able
> to improve it by tweaking how it's expressed in the schema. I'll look. In
> the mean time, if you're curious, you can find the relevant part of the
> schema here:
> https://bitbucket.org/validator/syntax/src/default/relaxng/web-forms.
> rnc?at=default#cl-48

hi Mike, as discussed have updated text around this issue please have a look at

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 12 August 2013 13:43:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:17:55 UTC