Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for wai-aria ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
|
i know the issue is marked for discussion in an upcoming ARIA editor's meeting. We can discuss this PR / what may need to change about it then as well. cc @pkra |
|
If we remove this, we should also remove the normative statement in 8.7. I think it would be good to keep a note on the general topic anyway, with a link to somewhere in CSS where these normative statements are made. I put it on the editors' agenda because I've been wondering about what "supporting host languages" means these days, i.e. what does ARIA expect from a "supporting host language"? |
|
From our conversation: I'll update the PR to rewrite the second occurrence to make a reference https://drafts.csswg.org/selectors/#attribute-selectors (via xref https://respec.org/xref/?term=attribute+selector). |
closes #2521 removes the following from the spec: >If a CSS selector includes a WAI-ARIA attribute (e.g., input[aria-invalid="true"] ), user agents MUST update the visual display of any elements matching (or no longer matching) the selector any time the attribute is added/changed/removed in the DOM. as CSS already defines how UAs are to handle element/attribute selectors
✅ Deploy Preview for wai-aria ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
|
🚀 Deployed on https://deploy-preview-2531--wai-aria.netlify.app |
- Section 4.2: updates to link to selectors-4 - Section 8.7: replaces normative language with Note, referencing selectors-4
|
@scottaohara I finally got around to this. What do you think of the additional change? |
|
FWIW at some point I wondered why it's not ok to have a normative requirement from the ARIA end - "if you support some parts of CSS as well as ARIA, you MUST support selectors-4". That kind of thing seems like a legitimate requirement for ARIA. But it's also irrelevant in this particular case (since attribute selectors are universally supported). |
This is not okay because we should not duplicate requirements. That often results in confusion and makes people misinterpret what is actually required. It's fine to point out it is required elsewhere through a note or statement of fact, but duplicating conformance criteria is an anti-pattern. |
What I was trying to describe was not a duplication. |
|
Oh sorry, I misread. I agree you could do that, but I'm not sure it's useful. |
spectranaut
left a comment
spectranaut
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me, apply the suggestion from anne first?
Co-authored-by: Anne van Kesteren <[email protected]>
the spec already had the note saying that this section could be removed in a future version....
4 participants
🚀 Netlify Preview:
🔄 this PR updates the following sspecs:
closes #2521
removes the following from the spec:
as CSS already defines how UAs are to handle element/attribute selectors
Preview | Diff