-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 70
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
"ARIA required context role" (ff89c9): resolve TF feedback #1554
Merged
Merged
Changes from 6 commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
4e67fd7
Inline def of owned elements
Jym77 2ef9e2b
Merge branch 'develop' into aria-required-context-role-tf-review
Jym77 d52a5bf
Apply suggestions from code review
Jym77 87ce3a8
Apply suggestions from code review
Jym77 2357dba
Merge branch 'develop' into aria-required-context-role-tf-review
Jym77 5982ee9
Merge branch 'develop' into aria-required-context-role-tf-review
Jym77 c437dd8
Merge branch 'develop' into aria-required-context-role-tf-review
Jym77 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Shouldn't we delete the sentence where we are saying that this rule mimics the HTML content model? Asking because the definition of the content model is suggesting that it's both children and descendants of the element/ test target.
It's contradictory to the beginning of the paragraph where we insist that this rule is restricted to direct parent-child relation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree with Aron's suggestion
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I can go either way on this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually, it depends where we look 🤯
The link used here indeed says
but a couple of line below we have 3.2.5 Content models stating
🤷
As far as I remember, HTML content model only refers to children, not further descendants (despite what the def says).
Additionally, the idea is not just to consider a single level in the tree (e.g., the rule allows the
table > rowgroup > row
chain which is 2 levels) but more than the chain have to be considered between parent/children and not ancestors/descendant.Using the ARIA def of "owned element", something like
table > rowgroup > navigation > row
would be allowed because therow
is "owned by" therowgroup
(as a descendant) but is not a "child in the accessiblity tree".So the difference is not about only looking at children, but about looking one step at a time and not skipping any.
The reason why we do this stepwise checks (disregarding ARIA specs) is that the content model is doing likewise. That is
<table><tbody><nav><tr>
is not OK because<nav>
is not allowed in a<tbody>
. The content model is only looking one step at a time, and individual elements' content model only mention children, but builds up a model that restrict descendants further away.Essentially, performing the same checks on implicit roles (only) should flag violations of the content model (not all of them, but some of them).
So, this is what I was trying to say there…
I'm afraid that keeping only the first part (the action) without the second (its justification) could lead to much confusion ("why are you not following ARIA specs?")
Not sure how to rephrase it to convey that information… I'll let it simmer a bit in case any of you has a brillant idea 😁
Easy fix might just be to switch the link and use the other one that does not mention descendants…
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I understand, and agre, with your reasoning.
Unfortunately, I don't have a better idea than what you suggested (i.e. change the link target).