Further clarifications to form role

[scottaohara]

Re: w3c/core-aam#11 (comment) and w3c/html-aria#423 - requiring a form be named seems like it should be scoped to only if someone wants to expose the form as a landmark.

[spectranaut]

@scottaohara please explain this issue a little more?

[curtbellew]

This makes sense to me. Because my ACC checker does check for duplicate landmarks, I would add that I think it's also best to name a form when there is more than one form on the page. Similar to the nav tag which can often appear more than once on a page - it's best in that case to name the nav regions ie 'Main' vs 'Some other'. That practice seems to apply here.

[scottaohara]

to help clarify this further:

The ARIA spec presently says that a role=form is required to be named.

But a form's role may still be announced even if it doesn't have a name, as the Core AAM issue/PR has resulted in.

Previously, a form (HTML element or if role=form was used) was only consistently exposed as a form if it had a name. Now, naming the form will promote it to a landmark... but it may still be exposed as a form per the linked change.

So the clarity here should be around "why" is a name for a form required. And that likely could be written up to touch on two topics:

1. to promote it to a landmark
2. to help distinguish different forms from each other that are present on the same web page.