- From: Bryan Garaventa <[email protected]>
- Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 16:46:54 +0000
- To: Joseph Scheuhammer <[email protected]>, Rich Schwerdtfeger <[email protected]>, ARIA Working Group <[email protected]>
Sounds good to me. My main concern was that this would be overlooked. The text looks good to me as is. -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Scheuhammer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 9:21 AM To: Bryan Garaventa <[email protected]>; Rich Schwerdtfeger <[email protected]>; ARIA Working Group <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Agenda: April 28, 2016 WAI-ARIA Working Group On 2016-04-28 11:57 AM, Bryan Garaventa wrote: > Currently the only option listed in this section is the use of aria-owns, which is problematic in this case. The text states for this special case that "... the element referenced by aria-activedescendant is not in fact a descendant ...". This is the most general way of stating the problem. Using aria-controls does *not* solve *this* problem. The only thing relevant here is that there is a case where aria-activedescendant does not actually reference a descendant, but it nonetheless works. That is all the needs to be documented in the aria-activedescendant section. > I believe one of the original proposals too was to allow the use of aria-controls as well in special cases when an explicit association is needed, such as when a text field is focused and includes role=combobox, but references another node such as role=option via aria-activedescendant. You are correct about the use of aria-controls with comboboxes. But, that is fully documented in the combobox role section with Matt's new text. I don't see the point of reiterating that in the aria-activedescendant specification. -- ;;;;joseph. 'Die Wahrheit ist Irgendwo da Drau�en. Wieder.' - C. Carter -
Received on Thursday, 28 April 2016 16:47:26 UTC