- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 15:12:03 +0100
- To: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
- Cc: public-pfwg@w3.org, Bryan Garaventa <bryan.garaventa@whatsock.com>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs@igalia.com>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>, "Gunderson, Jon R" <jongund@illinois.edu>, Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net>
James Craig, Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:45:02 -0800: >> Why don’t you count @src as ”implicit native role semantic”? […] >> Or consider the this script element. […] > Good question, and I think I have a good answer for you. > > They are still sufficiently different because the @src contents of > <iframe> and <img> are displayed, where as the @src contents of the > <script> element will never be displayed […] > This discussion has gone off the academic deep end though. One way to put it - in ARIA! - could be to say that @src is not part of what constitute <script>’s “implicit native role semantics” because, if we ignore how CSS and JavaScript can transform elements, a <script> element retains its basic scripting functionality even we remove @src. The same is not the case for <img>, <video>, <iframe> etc, which loose their normal functionality if the src attribute is dropped. I don’t know what about the data attribute of <object data=src>, though, due to the many possibilities it has. Or, may be we can find a common logic for data of object and src of video since, when I think about it, src of video is *not* absolutely necessary for its ”implicit native role semantics”: For both elements, they can have child elements (<source src=foo > and [roughly] <param type=src value=foo > ) that take over the role the corresponding attribute. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2014 14:12:34 UTC