If required is absent then aria-required should be allowed to override it.
We also need this for backward compatibility to older browsers which do not
support HTML5. I don't want to break existing code because HTML5 decided to
enforce a host language semantic where the author *chose to* override it.
I agree that <input type="text" required aria-required="true:> is redundant
but it harms nothing.
The spec. states that <input type="text" required aria required="false">
is invalid. I agree. required does not exist in HTML4 and this conflicts
with the host language semantics and there are no backward compatibility
issues with this. This is already covered by the spec.
So, the net is although HTML5 has some implied semantics wrt the absence of
a boolean attribute we have backward compatibility issues we must continue
to support. ... and at the end of the day I have NEVER seen this to be an
issue.
Rich
Rich Schwerdtfeger
From: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
To: James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>
Cc: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, Steve Faulkner
<faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, "Gunderson, Jon R"
<jongund@illinois.edu>, "w3c-wai-pf@w3.org WAI-PFWG"
<w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, WAI XTech <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Date: 05/08/2014 06:11 PM
Subject: Re: @required and @disabled - strong or weak ? (was RE: Does
the HTML5 required attribute have the same accessibility
affect as aria-required for an ARIA defined widget?)
On May 8, 2014, at 4:06 PM, James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com> wrote:
There is a huge backwards-compatibility argument to allowing <input
type="text" aria-required="true"> to act as a required field to the
AT APIs.
The same argument applies to <input type="text" required
aria-required="true"> and no one is opposed to allowing authors this
redundancy for the sake of backwards-compatibility.
