- From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:57:33 +0000
- 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: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-practices/#Descriptions_external > 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? http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-implementation/#mapping_additional_relations_reverse_relations > 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: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/states_and_properties#aria-describedby See also the other links I already collected, which show that the spec text around aria-describedby is very different from what you're describing: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Feb/0010.html -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Monday, 13 February 2012 20:58:05 UTC