W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

Re: HEADERS, FOR whom - any ID?

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:18:59 +0200
Message-ID: <60db0960df52ca05faf76feae2e13942@10013.local>
To: Bill Mason <w3c@accessibleinter.net>
Cc: public-html@w3.org

On 2007-08-04 05:32:12 +0200 Bill Mason <w3c@accessibleinter.net> wrote:

> Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> Maciej at one point conceded with Ian in that «more widely implemented» 
>> was a «pretty strong» argument in favour of keeping HEADERS/ID.[1]
>> 	The same is valid as an argument for keeping FOR/ID!
> They haven't been dropped.  They just haven't been moved into the HTML5 draft 
> yet from the WF2 document.
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#labels

Exactly! Forms «will be [...] with hopefully no normative changes» [1]. 

But why _haven't_ WHATwg proposed to remove it? FOR/ID and HEADERS/ID are twins - they're there for the same reasons! And as with HEADERS/ID, for most use cases, HTML4 has more «lazy» and «real world» methods than the FOR/ID combination.

I of course want the opposite of removing either HEADERS/ID or FOR/ID. 

It is logically inconsistent to keep the one combination that happens to assists sighted persons (FOR/ID), while at the same time propose to remove the one that (due to lack of follow-up of what HTML4 actually proposes) _only_ assists visually impaired (HEADERS/ID).

Lesson: To make HTML «accessible by design», it would be a good strategy strive to ensure that accessibilty elements/attributes also assists sighted persons.

{1} http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#forms
leif halvard silli
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2007 14:19:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:25 UTC