- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 12:23:12 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15948 --- Comment #6 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> --- (In reply to comment #4) > What you say above may be correct, but I still think that the point I made > in the linked (duplicate) bug would benefit from some clarification, i.e. > > why the section on interactive elements also includes the definition on > interactive behavior and other related requirements? It let me think that > elements that are interactive also have an activation behavior or at least > that the elements with an activation behavior are a subset of the > interactive ones. An <img> or <object> with the @usemap="foo" attribute set, is considered interactive, and such elements will reference a <map name="foo"> with designated <area> elements. As such, they are already described, or? > If this is not the case (as <area> is not listed as interactive) would be at > list valuable to limit the section on interactive elements to the given list > and create another section dedicated to the "activation behavior" That sounds like a good solution. In fact, HTML5 has become more and more fine grained when it comes to the categories and what they implly and do not imply. And I agree that it should probably be a separate bug. By creating such a dedicated section for activation behavior, we would avoid mixing into the problem the (possible) *other* implications of categorizing <area> as interactive. (As an example of what we avoid touching: If <area> became classified as interactive, then, it would have some implications for which parent elements it could have as some interactive elements are not allowed to have interactive children.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 16 August 2013 12:23:13 UTC