W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2008

Re: question about the draft:

From: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 06:46:02 +0100
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20080805054602.GA11746@stripey.com>

Justin James writes:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On
> > Behalf Of Ian Hickson
> > 
> > > If this assertion is true, why do you need "an appropriate HTML
> > > element" when you can create a nonce-element using the very
> > > techniques you have proposed ?
> > 
> > A "nonce-element" doesn't help screen readers. Screen readers only know
> > real HTML elements, they don't know about the inventions of the author.
> > Extensibility solutions don't help accessibility.
> 
> They do, *if* we provide a mechanism to tie semantics/accessibility to
> the class.

For that to work there'd have to be a set of semantics that all browsers
implement, that authors can choose to associate classes with (otherwise
nothing Ian puts in the page could possibly convey the semantics
required).

We already have such a set of semantics that browsers can convey;
there's a separate HTML element for each one.

If we discover additional semantics that authors need, what would be the
advantage in merely adding them to a list which authors could tie to
generic elements, rather than us creating a specific named element for
each one?

Smylers
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2008 05:55:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:57 UTC