- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 02:12:40 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25614 --- Comment #4 from James Craig <jcraig@apple.com> --- (In reply to steve faulkner from comment #3) > I can see an argument for moving > > 'input, select or textarea element with a required attribute > The aria-required state set to "true" > If specified, the aria-required state must be set to "true"' > > to the strong table as it can't be overridden > > leaving > > 'input, select or textarea element without a required attribute > aria-required set to "false" If specified, the aria-required state set to > "true" or "false"' If you leave the second piece in, we get conflicts where HTML5 @required is false (implicit via missing boolean attribute), but @aria-required is true: <input aria-required="true"> I understand the argument that this may be an HTML4 retrofit, and the author clearly intended it to be required, so I agree that the ARIA attr should win here. However, I think there should be an validation error if aria-required="true" is defined and the required attribute is missing. Would you be amenable to that change? Also... Since the @disabled boolean attribute has been available longer, do you have any objection to including these two in the Strong table? ''' input, select, or textarea element with a disabled attribute. The aria-disabled state set to "true". If specified, the aria-disabled state must be set to "true"' input, select, or textarea element without a disabled attribute. The aria-disabled state set to "false". If specified, the aria-disabled state must be set to "false" ''' -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2014 02:12:43 UTC