[Bug 27092] The header element semantic scope is controversial

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27092

Klim Lee <otherleek@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |INVALID

--- Comment #2 from Klim Lee <otherleek@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to steve faulkner from comment #1)
> (In reply to Klim Lee from comment #0)
> > The spec states in 4.3.7:
> > 
> > "The header element represents introductory content for its nearest ancestor
> > sectioning content or sectioning root element."
> > 
> > "When the nearest ancestor sectioning content or sectioning root element is
> > the body element, then it applies to the whole page."
> > 
> > At the same time, header’s default ARIA role is “banner”, which is very
> > different from “introductory content for nearest sectioning content”, and is
> > “mostly site-specific, rather than page-specific content”. In fact, that
> > means ATs should treat such headers as rather irrelevant to “nearest
> > ancestor sectioning content”.
> 
> The header element only has a default role=banner when the header element 
> is not a descendant of an article or section element, as per the HTML
> mapping
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/CR/dom.html#sec-strong-native-
> semantics and as implemented in browsers:
> http://stevefaulkner.github.io/html-mapping-tests/ except IE which has not
> implemented the semantics yet.

Thanks, Steve.

That’s a little confusing, given that header and footer are the only elements
whose semantics varies so drastically depending solely on their position.

What complicated the matter further is my own implementation tests: some
browsers will stop announcing “banner” when header’s content is other than
phrasing, regardless of its position. Which, obviously, lead me to believe that
implementations are not trustworthy at all.

Thanks again for clarification.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Friday, 17 October 2014 20:26:19 UTC