Defining an element’s implicit native role semantics (Was: Effect of role=presentation on img elements with svg)

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