Re: Proposal: simple annotation semantics with aria-detailstype

One wrinkle is if there are multiple detail ids.

We can address this in the spec in a couple of ways:
- specify that aria-detailstype goes on the target of the aria-details
- specify that aria-detailstype can be a space delimited set of tokens,
each applying to one of the aria-details ids, in order

Aaron

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 2:26 PM Aaron Leventhal <aleventhal@google.com>
wrote:

> People on the W3C call today weren't too sure about using the role on the
> target of aria-details, in order to specify the type of annotation. Here's
> an alternate proposal:
>
> Use aria-details + optional aria-detailstype on the same element with one
> of the following values:
> assessing, classifying, commenting, describing (default), editing,
> highlighting, identifying, linking, moderating, questioning, replying,
> tagging
> These values are imported from web annotations motivation vocabulary, but
> ARIA can eventually add additional types such as "breakpoint" for web-based
> code editors.
>
> This is still very simple to implement in browsers, AAM's and AT's. It
> also doesn't lead to an expansion of roles, and is more self-describing
> than using the role, which probably seems like ARIA black magic that only a
> few would know about.
>
> Do people like it?
>
> Aaron
>