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 08:24:03 +0100
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20080805072403.GB11746@stripey.com>

Justin James writes:

> > -----Original Message----- From: public-html-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Smylers
> > 
> > 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).
> 
> Yes, I agree. I think that the existing "semantic element set" would
> be a good start, and I think that the aria-role stuff already covered
> it pretty well.
> 
> > We already have such a set of semantics that browsers can convey;
> > there's a separate HTML element for each one.
> 
> Yup, exactly correct.
> 
> > 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?
> 
> It is not that we would be discovering new semantics per se (I think
> the existing list, as representing by existing elements, is more than
> sufficient to start with).

But the problem Ian mentioned is HTML not having an element which has a
plausible semantic meaning for denoting 'this is a major issue which we
need to look at'.

Either we already have such a semantic (in which case please suggest the
element Ian should use), or we're missing it (in which case nothing
other than adding that semantic will help).

> The idea is to be able to assign semantics to tags, particularly
> "generic" tags like div, span, img, etc.

That's a different point.  You've proposed that in a thread elsewhere,
where it can be discussed.

> For example, many images are used as checkboxes, buttons, and other
> form widgets, but looking at the HTML, there is no way for the UA/AT
> to really "get" that. Another use case is ...

Sure, you've made those points well in the other thread.

But given you brought up your proposal in the context of Ian trying to
solve this particular problem (and, for once, not a theoretical one
either), use-cases aren't what we're short of -- pointing out that your
proposal solves other use-cases still doesn't help with the real-world
situation we already have!

Smylers
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2008 07:24:37 UTC

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