W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Split Issue 30?

From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:57:33 +0000
Message-ID: <CAEhSh3eJC15bx+1Hnw29nXVceAcz79Axu4v7SzpEEV0yJWGtKQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
> ing aria-describedby for long text descriptions is a dead issue from the
> PF's perspective.

If this is the PFWG's position, why isn't it reflected in the ARIA
documents maintained by PFWG, for example:


> Attempts so to do overload describedby. That's unacceptable.
> Even should it prove there's some way by which browsers might pass
> marked up content to the a11y APIs so that these APIs will not flatten
> that content to straight text

You mean like the ways the ARIA implementation guide suggests?


> describedby still does not meet the
> requirements of a long text mechanism.

> Specifically, describedby is
> intended for content that is to be read automatically as it is
> encountered.

That seems like critical information about aria-describedby. If that's
the PF's position, why doesn't the formal definition of
aria-describedby say that:


See also the other links I already collected, which show that the spec
text around aria-describedby is very different from what you're


Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Monday, 13 February 2012 20:58:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:48 UTC