- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 21:19:22 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
- Message-ID: <bug-19451-2486@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19451
Priority: P2
Bug ID: 19451
CC: mike@w3.org, public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Assignee: faulkner.steve@gmail.com
Summary: Guidance on when to add ARIA inline vs script is
misleading
QA Contact: dave.null@w3.org
Severity: normal
Classification: Unclassified
OS: All
Reporter: lazdnet@gmail.com
Hardware: PC
Status: NEW
Version: unspecified
Component: Using ARIA in HTML
Product: HTML WG
The sentence in question:
"If the content and interaction is only supported in a scripting enabled
browsing context, for example Google docs applications require JavaScript
enabled to work, so it is safe for them to include the ARIA markup inline.
Otherwise add ARIA via scripting."
It seems like the author meant to say:
"If the content and interaction is only supported in a scripting enabled
browsing context, for example Google docs applications require JavaScript
enabled to work, it is safe to add the ARIA via scripting."
Either way, some additional elaboration on when to use markup inline and when
to add via scripting would be beneficial.
Thanks!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2012 21:19:23 UTC