- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:30:06 -0500
- To: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
I'm gonna boil down your email just to make things simpler for me; please correct me if I get something wrong. Your current ideas are: 1. Host languages can define implicit ARIA 'state', 'property', or 'role' semantics for their elements. 2. If an element has an implicit ARIA 'state' or 'property' semantic, authors SHOULD NOT specify an ARIA version. (Invisible metadata is evil, and should be avoided in favor of visible metadata whenever possible.) 3. If there is a conflict in a 'state' or 'property' semantic between ARIA and the host language's implicit semantics, the host language wins. 3. If there is a conflict in a 'role' semantic between ARIA and the host language's implicit semantics, ARIA wins. (This is to allow authors to fully repurpose elements in ways not anticipated by the host language.) 5. Host languages can define 'strong' implicit ARIA 'role' semantics. These still lose when put in conflict with an explicit ARIA 'role' semantic, but such conflicts can be flagged as an error by a conformance checker. Is this all correct? If so, sounds good to me. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 18:31:09 UTC