Re: aria-describedat

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Leif Halvard Silli
<> wrote:
>> The name should reflect the fact that it is a URL. e.g.
>> "aria-descriptionurl" or "aria-describeaturl" would be better.
> If one were to pick @describedaturl, then why not, just as well, change
> @describedby to @describedBYidrefs ?

I think "descriptionids" would have been better, but I suspect UAs
have to implement "aria-describedby" for compatibility with existing

> I think @describedat is reasonably good - it fits the current naming pattern.

I'd welcome a break from the existing pattern of naming things confusingly.

I don't think minting new names for existing features is prerequisite
for choosing better names for new features.

> Also, the name is probably not the only reason why @longdesc so often has had invalid content:

I didn't say it was. I think we should take especial effort to avoid
contributing factors to @longdesc's poisoning, whether those factors
were minor or major.

Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis

Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 23:38:59 UTC