W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2009

Aria-* vs html attributes and reflection

From: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:45:06 -0400
Message-ID: <fb6fbf560909230945g6cf71a3dw2b0c557b60ea6748@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTML WG Public List <public-html@w3.org>
As best I can tell, including from the table


the following should always be true:

    equivalent attributes -- maybe just alternate names for the same property?
	disabled ~= aria-disabled
	required ~= aria-required
	readonly ~= aria-readonly

    slightly more complicated because of HTML rules
	checkededness ~= aria-checked
	selectedness ~= aria-selected

and, for numeric elements

	element's maximum ~= aria-valuemax
	element's minimum ~= aria-valuemin
	element's value parsed as a number ~= aria-valuenow
		(if it can't be parsed as a number aria-valuenow is either the
default value or undefined)

(1)  Should this be stated explicitly?
(2)  Should the aria-* versions reflect changes made to the HTML
versions.  (I think so, but wasn't sure.)
(3)  If the aria-* versions are set, does that also change the HTML
version?  (I think it should, but couldn't find that in the spec.)  Or
is it impossible to change the aria-* versions directly, because
they'll immediately reflect back to the HTML version?

Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2009 16:46:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:57 UTC