- From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 11:36:24 -0800 (PST)
- To: "'Jonas Sicking'" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "'Richard Schwerdtfeger'" <schwer@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "'HTMLWG WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, <public-html-request@w3.org>, "'W3C WAI-XTECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Jonas Sicking wrote: > Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote: >> >> All we are doing is allowing the author to convey their intent. Do I > wish >> authors would use html elements for their purpose? Of course. That is > not >> the world we live in. Whether we believe something is a cowpath is > really >> irrelevant. Industry thought HTML was only for documents in 1998 too. > > Do you have any reason to believe that we'll be more successful in > asking authors to add a role attribute to the <a> than in asking them > to change to use a more appropriate element? Hi Jonas, We really have no reason to believe any given author will do anything right *or* wrong; experience tells us to expect both. The real question is, why impose limits when we don't really need to? Think inclusive, not restrictive. We can see JS libraries do that (add a role attribute to the <a>) for the author if/when required (as one use-case: ARIA is/was designed primarily for "DHTML / AJAX"). Moreover, what real harm is caused by allowing to do so? We can't envision all uses that authors might dream up moving forward: look at Bespin and Canvas - nobody really envisioned Bespin like use when Canvas was spec'd, yet here we are today. Cheers! JF
Received on Saturday, 7 November 2009 19:37:05 UTC