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

Re: ARIA Proposal

From: Aaron M Leventhal <aleventh@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:04:39 -0400
To: joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie
Cc: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>, public-html-request@w3.org, public-xhtml2@w3.org, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, wai-xtech@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFCDFBEA87.4CC04A4B-ON85257363.0047A124-85257363.0047CEA2@us.ibm.com>

Integrating all of ARIA into generic HTML 5 elements is not practical 
right now. Please check the FAQ and see if that helps you understand why:

As for "aria-role" instead of "role", we'll reply to Matthew's email.

- Aaron

Aaron Leventhal
IBM web accessibility architect
Mozilla accessiblity lead

Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie> 
Sent by: public-html-request@w3.org
09/27/2007 08:25 AM
Please respond to

Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
public-xhtml2@w3.org, public-html <public-html@w3.org>, Simon Pieters 
<simonp@opera.com>, wai-xtech@w3.org
Re: ARIA Proposal

I don't wish to speak out of turn here as there are many on this list
who know more about this stuff than I do but it seems to me that using
something that specifically says "This is an ARIA attribute" may be
easier to author as it's origin/purpose etc is explicit by the use of
the ARIA prefix. So from that perspective what Mathew suggests;

| <div aria-role="checkbox" aria-checked="true"></div>

looks like a good idea. Or should the ARIA states/properties be authored
as more generic type elements that are hardwired into the spec rather
like the way heading and list elements or proposed elements a la
<figure> currently are?

Received on Thursday, 27 September 2007 13:05:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:26 UTC