- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:31:50 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12243 --- Comment #4 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2011-03-22 17:31:48 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > Wouldn't a better fix here be to change ARIA such that pointing > @aria-labelledby or @aria-describedby at a link should allow the reader to > follow said link? [...] * Here you ask for a change of the ARIA feature. > As comment 0 states, even the people on the HTML WG (me included) made the > mistake of thinking that this was allowed. Given that the vast majority of the > documents on the web does not pass a HTML validator without errors, I think we > can safely assume adding another error to the validation will leave a vast > majority of documents unaffected. [...] * It is posible to have the view that "normal" validators shouldn't focus on ARIA errors *without* simultaneously demanding that ARIA should change how aria-describedby works. As for what authors will misunderstand: Why do you believe that authors will, in particular, misunderstand the fact that links are "dead" whenever they are referenced via the ARIA-describedby intereface? The thing is that aria-describedby has the same "issue" with <table> as it has with <a>. Namely: when the table is presented via the "aria-describedby interface", then the table is not presented to the user as a table, but as a plain and simple string. I think that once authors understand the fact that ARIA very often turns things into dead text strings, then they are not anymore prone to think that @aria-describedby works anymore "well" together with links than it works with tabls. -- 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 Tuesday, 22 March 2011 17:31:52 UTC