- From: John Foliot - WATS.ca <foliot@wats.ca>
- Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 08:16:52 -0700
- To: <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>, <public-html@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-html@w3.org>
Mark Birbeck wrote: > > But secondly, I would say that using @class rather than the role > attribute to carry values that are about the structure of a document, > could appear to be an example of the 'not invented here' mindset. I'm > sure it's not, but I would urge people to consider @role for this > task, since: > > * @role was created specifically to allow authors to say what an > element's purpose is; > > * it was further motivated by trying to provide an 'unpolluted' > value space so that there would be no ambiguities; > > * it is available as a standalone module that can be used in > different mark-up languages; > > * it has been added to Firefox already. > !!! Thank you Mark!!! I might also suggest that @role is endorsed and supported by the Mozilla Foundation, that the ARIA Suite (which is leaning on @role to achieve it's goals) is funded in part by the good folks at IBM, and emerging as significant in the accessibility of AJAX technologies, and it's built-in ability to scale out via RDF is exactly what the semantic proponents are suggesting we need. New Question: given that @role *is* an important part of Accessible Rich Internet Applications (or at least emerging as such), if HTML 5 *does not* support @role, what then of this work, and of accessibility? Or are we stepping backwards here too? JF JF
Received on Monday, 7 May 2007 15:17:20 UTC