- 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