Re: additional sentence for 204

On Sep 19, 2012, at 1:51 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak, Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:37:35 -0700:
>> On Sep 18, 2012, at 1:42 PM, Leif Halvard Silli:
>>> Maciej Stachowiak, Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:57:28 -0700:
>>> 
>>> Currently, aria-hidden=true is a boolean attribute value. Thus 
>>> aria-hidden=false is only informative. I saw that James proposed that 
>>> aria-hidden=false should have an effect.
>> 
>> As far as I can tell:
>> 
>> - aria-hidden is not a boolean attribute in the HTML sense (i.e. it's 
>> not just presence or absence that matters, the attribute value 
>> actually matters)
>> - both aria-hidden=true and aria-hidden=false are defined to have 
>> meaning by WAI-ARIA: 
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/states_and_properties#aria-hidden>
> 
> As far as I can tell James do not view it to be like that, yet:
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18744#26
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18744#27
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18744#29

I do view it to mean what the spec says, but that means we have an at-risk feature for ARIA 1.0's CR status.
https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/issues/535 (aria-hidden="false" at risk)

> So it seems to me that we would need changes in ARIA spec and 
> implementations before one could use aria-hidden="false". (But may be 
> aria-hidden="discoverable"?)

Interesting. That's certainly worth considering for ARIA 2.0.
https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/issues/536 (aria-hidden="discoverable")

James

Received on Friday, 21 September 2012 22:38:17 UTC