- From: Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexander@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:09:17 +0800
- To: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
- Cc: wai-xtech@w3.org, David Bolter <dbolter@mozilla.com>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Great. Right, it could be fixed on the user agent side. Will aria-setsize be allowed on items sill? Though it might be different issue I guess. Thank you. Alex. On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:04 AM, James Craig <jcraig@apple.com> wrote: > Agreed. The contradiction is a mistake. > > The example was just added a couple days ago, but I believe the intention is to define setsize on the set instead of redundantly on every item. This may have previously been required due to an implementation detail (easier for the AT to check all properties on current node) but it seems like that's something that can be abstracted by the browser. > > I've raised the issue (#396). Thanks for catching my mistake. > > > On Dec 11, 2009, at 5:29 PM, Alexander Surkov wrote: > >> Hi. >> >> The ARIA specification says "This property is marked on the members of >> a set, not the container element that collects the members of the set. >> " (see http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/states_and_properties#aria-setsize). >> However the same time it provides an example where the aria-setsize is >> used on the container element: >> >> <ul role="listbox" aria-setsize="16" aria-labelledby="label_fruit"> >> <li role="option" aria-posinset="1"> apples </li> >> >> I find the idea to define aria-setsize on the container element >> reasonable and useful and I would happy if the user agents would take >> into account the aria-setsize on the container only. But I'm fine with >> either way because currently aria-setsize is supposed to be used on >> the item. >> >> Can the spec be fixed? >> >> Thank you. >> Alex. >> > >
Received on Saturday, 12 December 2009 02:09:49 UTC