- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:02:39 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20699 Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|ARIA: Reshuffle "Strong |ARIA: Reshuffle and rename |Native Semantics" section |the sections "Strong Native |and "Implicit ARIA |Semantics" and "Implicit |Semantics" section |ARIA Semantics" section --- Comment #1 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> --- NEW PROPOSAL: To not deviate further from the WHATWG spec, do not (necessarily) change the order of Strong vs Implict semantics. Instead create a new parent section called "Implicit ARIA Semantics" and rename the current "Implicit ARIA semantics" section to "Restricted ARIA semantics". Expressed in pseudo-code: <section><h1>Implicit Semantics</h1> <p><!-- Definion of "no ARIA-defined role" goes here see bug 10618.--></p> <p><!-- This encompassing section should explain that all/most(?) HTML features have default native semantics, which can be overridden by the role attribute. And then the two next subsections should put restrictions on some of the HTML features.--></p> <p><!-- Also, as long as the spec doesn't list the native role of *ALL* elements (such as <table>, which most certainly defaults to no role), then this section should clarify that the HTML spec does *not* list the default implicit ARIA semantis of all elemnets --></p> <section><h1>Strong Native Sematics</h1> <!-- Keep roughly as is --> </section> <section><h1>Restricted Native Semantics</h1> <!--"Restricted Native Semantics" seems like a muuch more telling term.---> </section> <section> JUSTIFICATION: The current headings (and deviation from the WHATWG spec) first occurred in this WD: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-html5-20121025/ Before this change, the spec had (more or less direct) the dichotomy "Strong native semantics" versus "Weak native semantics". This can still be seen in the idrefs of the tables, which are "table-aria-weak" vs "table-aria-strong". But fact is that "weak" has connotations that are different from the current "Implicit ARIA Semantics" heading. The specs current title does in fact open up for confusion such as the question: Why doesn't the table over "Implicit ARIA semantics" mot list *all* the elements that have default implicit ARIA semantics? For example, why does it not list the table element, whose role most certainly should be "no role", but which can be overriden by other role? The answer, in the table element’s case, is that there is no specified limitation on the exact roles it could take. Thus, like many other elements, it can take any role. And, as long as the (implied) title of this table was "weak native aria semantics", then it was more obvioius why 'table' did not occur in the table. ADVANTAGES: I believe that the proposed new structure clarifies that *all* this (both strong and restricted ARIA semantics) is aspects of "Implicit ARIA semantics". Further more, the proposed new structure eliminates the current confusion linked to the current heading named "Implicit ARIA semantics". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2013 19:02:47 UTC