Hi WHATWG,
ยง4.9.12 Processing model (
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/tables.html#processing-model-3 )
currently states:
A *row* is a complete set of slots from x=0 to x=x_width-1, for a
particular value of y. Rows usually correspond to tr elements, though a row
group can have some
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Daniel Trebbien dtrebb...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/appendices#html_dtd
DTDs have nothing to do with what you're seeing here. They're best ignored.
One issue is that the ARIA semantics for implied rows are not defined.
I'm not sure I
(sorry, forgot to copy the list)
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Daniel Trebbien dtrebb...@gmail.com
wrote:
...
One issue is that the ARIA semantics for implied rows are not defined.
I'm not sure I understand
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Daniel Trebbien dtrebb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Daniel Trebbien dtrebb...@gmail.com
wrote:
One issue is that the ARIA semantics for implied rows are not
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Daniel Trebbien dtrebb...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Daniel Trebbien
Am 19.06.2013 um 20:53 schrieb Ian Hickson:
[...]
I've changed the spec to make figure applicable to your use case as
well, and added more text to explain various use cases and whether they
apply to figure. Let me know if the new text is still problematic for
your use case. I agree that
Am 17.06.2013 um 22:58 schrieb Ian Hickson:
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, Martin Janecke wrote:
Am 17.06.2013 um 11:35 schrieb Steve Faulkner:
the restriction on figure/figcaption is only in the whawtg spec not
the W3C HTML spec as it was not deemed a useful or practical
restriction when reviewed
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Martin Janecke wrote:
Am 17.06.2013 um 22:58 schrieb Ian Hickson:
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, Martin Janecke wrote:
Am 17.06.2013 um 11:35 schrieb Steve Faulkner:
the restriction on figure/figcaption is only in the whawtg spec not
the W3C HTML spec as it was not deemed a
Hi again,
forgot to mention that the requirements for conformance checkers
implementation requirements do differ due to differing the author
requirement.
so in W3C HTML validator:
this results in an error
img title=poot
In validator.nu it doesn't
--
Regards
SteveF
HTML 5.1
Am 17.06.2013 um 11:35 schrieb Steve Faulkner:
Is there a chance that use of aria-labelledby is added to the spec
(4.8.1.1.13 Guidance for markup generators, 4.8.1.1.14 Guidance for
conformance checkers) as alternative to figure with figcaption or the title
attribute? I'd like to suggest
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, Martin Janecke wrote:
Am 17.06.2013 um 11:35 schrieb Steve Faulkner:
the restriction on figure/figcaption is only in the whawtg spec not
the W3C HTML spec as it was not deemed a useful or practical
restriction when reviewed by the HTML WG.
Sounds lovely, this
Am 07.06.2013 um 23:13 schrieb Ian Hickson:
img src=... title=image
If you have a caption from the user (as opposed to replacement text), then
this is a perfectly valid option. It's as valid as the figure case, and
means the same thing.
[...]
I don't know whether someones writes
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Dave Hodder wrote:
The current HTML 5 draft doesn't mention ARIA anywhere. Perhaps it
should clarify the relationship (or non-relationship as it is at
present), even if it's only a brief mention in section 1.1.
There's a section on it now.
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, James
Jim Jewett wrote:
I think the question is more about how the HTML elements themselves
interact.
For example,tr elements should probably be interpreted by default
astr aria-role=row because that is part of the semantics of tr.
In some cases, the default mapping will also depend on other
Aaron Leventhal wrote:
James Graham wrote:
Dave Hodder wrote:
The current HTML 5 draft doesn't mention ARIA anywhere. Perhaps it
should clarify the relationship (or non-relationship as it is at
present), even if it's only a brief mention in section 1.1.
Unfortunately a brief mention is
Aaron Leventhal wrote:
On the other hand for the landmark roles which specify semantics but
not behavior, I would agree that sticking with HTML elements is a better
approach. Even if there is associated behavior for them, such as a
hotkey, they will degrade well to older user agents.
OK,
James Graham wrote:
What's the easiest way to test existing aria implementations on
Mac/Linux (I don't have access to a Windows box)?
Firefox 3 + Accessibility Extensions for Mozilla
http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/software/mozilla/installation.php
JF
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:56:22 -0800, John Foliot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James Graham wrote:
What's the easiest way to test existing aria implementations on
Mac/Linux (I don't have access to a Windows box)?
Firefox 3 + Accessibility Extensions for Mozilla
James Graham wrote:
Dave Hodder wrote:
The current HTML 5 draft doesn't mention ARIA anywhere. Perhaps it
should clarify the relationship (or non-relationship as it is at
present), even if it's only a brief mention in section 1.1.
Unfortunately a brief mention is insufficient as aria
Dave Hodder wrote:
The current HTML 5 draft doesn't mention ARIA anywhere. Perhaps it
should clarify the relationship (or non-relationship as it is at
present), even if it's only a brief mention in section 1.1.
Unfortunately a brief mention is insufficient as aria functionality
overlaps
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
As for my suggestion of reldata, my intent is to use the attribute for any type of data
related to the element. The role attribute is intended to be used (from my
understanding) to designate what role the element is playing on the page. This is not an
21 matches
Mail list logo
