23377 2013-09-27 07:37:05 +0000 ARIA: Strong Native Semantics table should define implicit non-required state on form elements (Currently defines required state, but not the implicit inverse) 2014-05-08 21:40:08 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG HTML5 spec unspecified PC All RESOLVED FIXED CR P2 normal --- 23376 23378 1 faulkner.steve faulkner.steve jcraig mike public-html-a11y public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 93933 0 faulkner.steve 2013-09-27 07:37:05 +0000 +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #23376 +++ @required is a Boolean attribute in HTML. @aria-required is a "true/false" (boolean) attribute in ARIA. The spec currently defines in the Strong Native Semantics table that: input element that is required = The aria-required state set to "true"… select element with a required attribute = The aria-required state set to "true"… textarea element with a required attribute = The aria-required state set to "true"… but since the HTML host language attribute is Boolean, the same elements *without* the required attribute defined are implicitly *not* required. Therefore, the strong native semantics table should also include: input element that is not required = The aria-required state set to "false"… select element without a required attribute = The aria-required state set to "false"… textarea element without a required attribute = The aria-required state set to "false"… Otherwise, the spec is implying that "HTML true is in conflict with ARIA false" but "HTML false is not in conflict with ARIA true", and defining one-way conflict resolution does not make sense for a Boolean state like this. Likewise: Element that is disabled = The aria-disabled state set to "true" So the table should also include: Element that is not disabled = The aria-disabled state set to "false" 93937 1 sideshowbarker+gitzilla 2013-09-27 08:55:54 +0000 Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/w3c/html https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/ab7e3f79a055b6490f52b316283efec9f2d90440 explicitly allow aria-required define an input or textarea without a required attribute is allowed to have a aria-required attribute="true|false" see bug 23377 93938 2 faulkner.steve 2013-09-27 09:07:03 +0000 (In reply to steve faulkner from comment #0) > +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #23376 +++ > > @required is a Boolean attribute in HTML. > @aria-required is a "true/false" (boolean) attribute in ARIA. > > The spec currently defines in the Strong Native Semantics table that: > > input element that is required = The aria-required state set to "true"… > select element with a required attribute = The aria-required state set to > "true"… > textarea element with a required attribute = The aria-required state set to > "true"… > > but since the HTML host language attribute is Boolean, the same elements > *without* the required attribute defined are implicitly *not* required. > Therefore, the strong native semantics table should also include: > > input element that is not required = The aria-required state set to "false"… > select element without a required attribute = The aria-required state set to > "false"… > textarea element without a required attribute = The aria-required state set > to "false"… > > Otherwise, the spec is implying that "HTML true is in conflict with ARIA > false" but "HTML false is not in conflict with ARIA true", and defining > one-way conflict resolution does not make sense for a Boolean state like > this. > > > Likewise: > Element that is disabled = The aria-disabled state set to "true" > > So the table should also include: > Element that is not disabled = The aria-disabled state set to "false" Hi james, I think there are legitimate use cases for allowing aria-required on elements without the required attribute. It is common practice to have a a control that is marked as required in text for example using an asterisk: <label>name * <input></label> It is not a requirement in HTML5 that this pattern must use the required attribute to mark the control as required, and there are reasons why an author may not want to use the required attribute such as they do not want the associated UI and behaviour that is implemented by some user agents for the required attribute. Thus in the example above providing the author with the means to convey the required state to acc APIs via aria-required will improve the accessibility of the pattern. I have defined the use of aria-required on controls without the required attribute as allowed in the spec (see commit below) 93940 3 sideshowbarker+gitzilla 2013-09-27 09:31:20 +0000 Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/w3c/html https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/7164e921de9185e122778a3cd22cb7e81fc171b5 added select as allowed to have aria-required missed it before see bug 23377 93955 4 jcraig 2013-09-27 17:26:02 +0000 (In reply to steve faulkner from comment #2) > I think there are legitimate use cases for allowing aria-required on > elements without the required attribute. > > It is common practice to have a a control that is marked as required in text > for example using an asterisk: > > <label>name * <input></label> > > It is not a requirement in HTML5 that this pattern must use the required > attribute to mark the control as required, and there are reasons why an > author may not want to use the required attribute such as they do not want > the associated UI and behaviour that is implemented by some user agents for > the required attribute. Thus in the example above providing the author with > the means to convey the required state to acc APIs via aria-required will > improve the accessibility of the pattern. I could accept the behavior you want, but as it's written in the spec, it conflicts with itself because @required is a Boolean attribute. You need to make either one of these changes: 1. Either define the "false" state of @required in the Strong Native Semantics table, where you currently have only the "true" state. (This would effectively mean @aria-required had no effect on form elements that accept @required.) 2. Move all the mentioned of @required and @aria-required from the Strong Native Semantics table to the implicit ARIA semantics. (This would allow the behavior you appear to desire and have outlined above.) 93958 5 jcraig 2013-09-27 17:34:56 +0000 *** Bug 23376 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** 93996 6 faulkner.steve 2013-09-28 08:19:41 +0000 (In reply to James Craig from comment #4) > (In reply to steve faulkner from comment #2) > > > I think there are legitimate use cases for allowing aria-required on > > elements without the required attribute. > > > > It is common practice to have a a control that is marked as required in text > > for example using an asterisk: > > > > <label>name * <input></label> > > > > It is not a requirement in HTML5 that this pattern must use the required > > attribute to mark the control as required, and there are reasons why an > > author may not want to use the required attribute such as they do not want > > the associated UI and behaviour that is implemented by some user agents for > > the required attribute. Thus in the example above providing the author with > > the means to convey the required state to acc APIs via aria-required will > > improve the accessibility of the pattern. > > I could accept the behavior you want, but as it's written in the spec, it > conflicts with itself because @required is a Boolean attribute. You need to > make either one of these changes: > > 1. Either define the "false" state of @required in the Strong Native > Semantics table, where you currently have only the "true" state. (This would > effectively mean @aria-required had no effect on form elements that accept > @required.) > > 2. Move all the mentioned of @required and @aria-required from the Strong > Native Semantics table to the implicit ARIA semantics. (This would allow the > behavior you appear to desire and have outlined above.) Hi james, > I could accept the behavior you want Do you consider the use case i outlined is reasonable? I will follow you advice and move into implicit only table, but will keep restraint that when required is present aria-required, if specified, must be set to true. Sound OK? 94000 7 sideshowbarker+gitzilla 2013-09-28 18:48:40 +0000 Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/w3c/html https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/4b4837be983f1c9ac3f0942b88401d2908665e1d moved required from strong to implicit table see bug 23377 94064 8 jcraig 2013-10-01 08:34:49 +0000 I'm fine with that edit. Thanks Steve. 94065 9 faulkner.steve 2013-10-01 08:41:05 +0000 (In reply to James Craig from comment #8) > I'm fine with that edit. Thanks Steve. EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the Editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the Tracker Issue; or you may create a Tracker Issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Accepted Change Description: see comment 7 Rationale: agreed with commenter that the rules should be in the implicit semantics table 98598 10 sideshowbarker+gitzilla 2014-01-16 15:11:02 +0000 Commits pushed to CR at https://github.com/w3c/html https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/ab7e3f79a055b6490f52b316283efec9f2d90440 explicitly allow aria-required https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/7164e921de9185e122778a3cd22cb7e81fc171b5 added select as allowed to have aria-required https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/4b4837be983f1c9ac3f0942b88401d2908665e1d moved required from strong to implicit table 105465 11 jcraig 2014-05-08 17:55:40 +0000 *** Bug 23376 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** 105489 12 jcraig 2014-05-08 21:38:31 +0000 Continued in bug 25614.