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

Re: Split Issue 30? (Now: ISSUE-204)

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:07:53 +0100
To: HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
Cc: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Message-ID: <20120216170753887387.a5e9a2a6@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Leif Halvard Silli, Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:06:46 +0100:
> Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:

>> (1) @hidden (a boolean attribute)
>> (2) style="visibitliy:hidden"
>> (3) style="display:none"
>> (4) @aria-hidden (not a boolean attribute)
>> For example: does a combination of (1) or (3) with
>> @aria-hidden="false" make any difference to just (3)? Should it?
> Good question. And one that I had myself. Within me I concluded that if 
> you do
> <img aria-describedby=desc>
> <div id=desc hidden style='display:none'>
> then there would be no description - provided that full semantics means 
> that CSS is respected too.

Hm - I think what I said above doesn't makes sense: 

Currently - without "the ISSUE-204 feature" - an AT would present the 
#desc element as pure text. Hence, in order to make the experience of 
the 'flattened' version of the #desc element and the 'un-flattened' as 
similar as possible, it doesn't make sense if "the ISSUE-204 feature" 
caused the #desc element to not be presented to the user. So, for the 
'root' @hidden element - such as this #desc element in the above 
example - an AT with support for "the ISSUE-204 feature" should ignore 
the display:none. For children of the #desc element, then display:none 
would probably have to be ignored and/or perhaps non-conforming.
Leif H Silli
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2012 16:08:35 UTC

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