Apologies if I am being dense but I am a little flummoxed as to how any attributes used in HTML are not included in the parsing criteria. HTML defines how ARIA attributes are to be used in HTML as it does for a host of other features from other specs, what is the issue? -- Regards SteveF Current Standards Work @W3C <http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-standards-work-at-w3c/> On 1 February 2016 at 11:28, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote: > David MacDonald wrote: > > Strictly speaking malformed aria would be limited to 1.3.1, or 4.1.2 (or > perhaps 1.1.1 on image or > > input name messups.) > > Not what I would want... would love to include in 4.1.1 but it is not > specified there. Wai-aria wasn't around yet. > > I think it’s clear that a mis-spelled attribute (e.g. ARIA) would affect > ATs in a similar way to a mis-spelled HTML tag, so ideally we could add to > or change the SC so that “elements *and attributes* are complete and > nested according to their specifications”. > > Not sure how given the process, but it would be helpful. > > I agree that it would trigger issues under 4.1.2 so it is not a > catastrophic issue, but as Gregg said "4.1.1 was intended to protect AT > against errors (or sloppy code practices)”. ARIA is exactly the sort of > thing a developer wouldn’t notice as it isn’t visually apparent in regular > browsers, so it would fit better there. > > Jason mentioned that ARIA was "was around and under active development > from 2004-2008”. It was around as a spec, but it was not implemented widely > enough for there to be evidence of those type of errors affecting ATs, > which was the basis for things included in 4.1.1. I think there is now. > > -Alastair >
Received on Monday, 1 February 2016 12:34:05 UTC