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.


'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