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?)

+1 as well

 

The general rule-set should reflect that in the case of any implied (boolean) attributes, author-supplied aria-attributes are the "stronger" of the 2. 

 

This applies not only to @required / aria-required, but also to such chestnuts as @checked (or for those old XHTML1 fans checked="checked") versus aria-checked, where the absence of the @checked attribute DOES NOT over-ride the aria-checked="true" author declaration.

 

JF

 

From: james.nurthen@oracle.com [mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 9, 2014 7:46 AM
To: Richard Schwerdtfeger
Cc: James Craig; Steve Faulkner; John Foliot; Gunderson, Jon R; w3c-wai-pf@w3.org WAI-PFWG; WAI XTech
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?)

 

+1 to that. 


On May 9, 2014, at 7:38, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote:

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

<graycol.gif>James Craig ---05/08/2014 06:11:40 PM---On May 8, 2014, at 4:06 PM, James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com> wrote: > There is a huge backwa

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.