- From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:57:33 +0000
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
> ing aria-describedby for long text descriptions is a dead issue from the
> PF's perspective.
If this is the PFWG's position, why isn't it reflected in the ARIA
documents maintained by PFWG, for example:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-practices/#Descriptions_external
> Attempts so to do overload describedby. That's unacceptable.
>
> Even should it prove there's some way by which browsers might pass
> marked up content to the a11y APIs so that these APIs will not flatten
> that content to straight text
You mean like the ways the ARIA implementation guide suggests?
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-implementation/#mapping_additional_relations_reverse_relations
> describedby still does not meet the
> requirements of a long text mechanism.
> Specifically, describedby is
> intended for content that is to be read automatically as it is
> encountered.
That seems like critical information about aria-describedby. If that's
the PF's position, why doesn't the formal definition of
aria-describedby say that:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/states_and_properties#aria-describedby
See also the other links I already collected, which show that the spec
text around aria-describedby is very different from what you're
describing:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Feb/0010.html
--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Monday, 13 February 2012 20:58:05 UTC