- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 08:35:45 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10450 --- Comment #18 from steve faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> 2010-10-14 08:35:44 UTC --- (In reply to comment #17) > Nobody is asking the ARIA spec to list every case. All I'm saying is that it > should describe the processing of roles in the specification. Right now, ARIA > does not say that role=presentational means that you skip the element in the > DOM when determining what the child of an element is, all it does is remove the > element from the accessible tree which is presumably what is exposed to ATs > (note that this is _not_ the same as the tree that has the ARIA annotations — > it's what the tree with ARIA annotations is turned into). > > I respect everyone's opinion that this is what they want ARIA to say, but as > editor I have to make sure that the HTML spec is actually compatible with what > ARIA actually says, otherwise we are back to the world where the specs have to > have "priests" to "interpret" them like holy texts, and there's no chance of > getting interoperability by just following the specs. nobody else (authors or implementors) appears to have a problem understanding how it works, if you have a problem, please file a bug against the ARIA spec. Note: this bug has been escalated as part of issue 129 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/129, so you can argue your case to the HTML WG, as to why role="presentaion" should not be conforming on list elements, in the form of a null change proposal. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 14 October 2010 08:35:47 UTC