Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
Navigation Menubar Example: Add aria-expanded validation note
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history 
For issue #447, Added the following note below the roles, states, and properties table on the navigation menubar example page:

> Currently, using aria-expanded on elements with role menuitem triggers HTML validation errors because the ARIA specification does not yet support doing so.
> The ARIA working group plans to resolve this issue in the next version of the specification.
> Until a version of ARIA that resolves the issue becomes a W3C recommendation, it is safe to ignore these validation errors.
> Alternatively, since only a few browser and assistive technology combinations exploit this feature of the pattern, it can be omitted from implementations.

IN the two rows of the table about aria-expanded, added text to see note below.
  • Loading branch information
@mcking65
mcking65 committed Oct 8, 2017
1 parent 94e4602 commit 310801c
Showing 1 changed file with 11 additions and 2 deletions.
13 changes: 11 additions & 2 deletions examples/menubar/menubar-1/menubar-1.html
View file
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -561,7 +561,7 @@ <h3 id="rps2_label">Submenu</h3>
<td>
<code>a</code>
</td>
<td>Indicates the submenu is open.</td>
<td>Indicates the submenu is open. (<strong>See note below.</strong>)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
Expand All @@ -571,7 +571,7 @@ <h3 id="rps2_label">Submenu</h3>
<td>
<code>a</code>
</td>
<td>Indicates the submenu is closed.</td>
<td>Indicates the submenu is closed. (<strong>See note below.</strong>)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>
Expand All @@ -590,6 +590,15 @@ <h3 id="rps2_label">Submenu</h3>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3>Note</h3>
<p>
Currently, using aria-expanded on elements with role menuitem triggers HTML validation errors because the ARIA specification does not yet support doing so.
The ARIA working group plans to resolve this issue in the next version of the specification.
Until a version of ARIA that resolves
<a href="https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/454">the issue</a>
becomes a W3C recommendation, it is safe to ignore these validation errors.

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Copy link
@sideshowbarker

sideshowbarker Oct 8, 2017

I don’t need a W3C Recommendation to be published in order to change the HTML checker behavior; instead I just need https://w3c.github.io/aria/aria/aria.html (the Editor’s Draft) to change.

I remains unclear to me why, if the ARIA working group plans to resolve this, the group hasn’t just gone ahead and done that and made the appropriate change to the sources so the https://w3c.github.io/aria/aria/aria.html spec could get updated and so that I could go ahead and update the HTML checker to conform to that change.

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Copy link
@mcking65

mcking65 Oct 10, 2017

Author Contributor

We didn't change the ARIA spec because we are working on moving from CR to PR and this would require exiting and re-entering CR. So, this issue is now in the ARIA 1.2 work stream.

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Copy link
@mcking65

mcking65 Oct 10, 2017

Author Contributor

I didn't know you could change the validator based on an editor's draft, but if that is possible, then we may not have to wait so long. But, my understanding was that the validator was based on W3C Recommendations.

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Copy link
@sideshowbarker

sideshowbarker Oct 10, 2017

We didn't change the ARIA spec because we are working on moving from CR to PR and this would require exiting and re-entering CR.

You don’t have to change the CR spec. You can just change the Editor’s Draft.

So, this issue is now in the ARIA 1.2 work stream

Sounds like the WG could publish a ARIA 1.2 Editor’s Draft, then

But, my understanding was that the validator was based on W3C Recommendations.

That’s not correct.

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Copy link
@sideshowbarker

sideshowbarker Oct 10, 2017 •
edited
Loading

But, my understanding was that the validator was based on W3C Recommendations.

That’s not correct.

To be more clear: if I had waited til ARIA 1.1 had gone to Recommendation, we wouldn’t have any support at all for ARIA 1.1 in the validator yet. But we do have ARIA 1.1 support in the validator — because I started adding that support sometime soon after the ARIA WG first provided an ARIA 1.1 Editor’s Draft.
Alternatively, since only a few browser and assistive technology combinations exploit this feature of the pattern, it can be omitted from implementations.
</p>
</section>

<section>
Expand Down

0 comments on commit 310801c

Please sign in to comment.