- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:42:00 +0300
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
On Oct 21, 2009, at 12:23, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 1:45 AM, Steven Faulkner > <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: >> hi maciej, >>> I think <button> is pretty consistently fully stylable cross-browser >>> (unlike, say, <input type="button">). >> This is really incidental to the issue being discussed, most, if >> not all >> html elements can be scripted and styled in a way that overides >> their native >> semantic >> If this is allowed, then it follows that the addition of ARIA roles >> should not result in a conformance error, as the addition of ARIA is >> incidental to the developers intention to overide the native >> semantics. > > Couldn't the same argument be made for any other element as well? Does > this mean that we should allow ARIA roles on all elements? > > I guess there still are a few exceptions, like <script>, <style>, > and <form>. Also, presumably the new HTML5 elements don't have a legacy of being repurposed. FWIW, I put <a> on the weak list at http://hsivonen.iki.fi/aria-html5-bis/ > But for example <h1> can be overridden to look and act like a button > or a link, does this mean that we should allow arbitrary ARIA on <h1>? Styling h1 to be a button probably isn't a cowpath. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 13:42:40 UTC