W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-aria@w3.org > January 2016

Re: ACTION-1380 and ACTION-1700

From: Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 10:14:14 -0500
To: Rich Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com>, public-aria@w3.org
Message-ID: <56A78D46.1030705@alum.mit.edu>
Hi Rich,

On 2016-01-25 5:46 PM, Rich Schwerdtfeger wrote:
> Consequently applying role=“presentation” or role=“none” are applied 
> to the <img> they result is the same as aria-hidden=“true” is applied 
> to the image. If it is possible to make the descendant elements 
> accessible the SHOULD embed the document directly within the host 
> document without it being referred to by <img>.
>
These two sentences are slightly garbled.  I think you mean:

"
Consequently, using a role=“presentation” or role=“none” on an <img> 
element is equivalent to using aria-hidden=“true”. If it is possible to 
make the descendent elements accessible, the user agent SHOULD embed the 
DOM representing those descendants directly within the host document.
"

It's not clear what you menan by "without it being referred to by the 
<img>".  What happens to the <img> element in the DOM?  Does it vanish?  
Or Is the DOM root of the descendents a sibling of the <img>? If user 
agents treat the <img> similar to an <iframe> context, the descendants 
within the <iframe> are not children, but are still referenced as a 
property of the <iframe>.

IMO, just drop the "without it being referred to by the <img>", thereby 
leaving it open as the exact implementation details.  That's a problem 
for the html working group.

-- 
;;;;joseph.

'Die Wahrheit ist Irgendwo da Draußen. Wieder.'
                  - C. Carter -
Received on Tuesday, 26 January 2016 15:14:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:23:18 UTC