W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2009

Re: ARIA roles added to the a element should be conforming in HTML5.

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:42:00 +0300
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>
Message-Id: <2F4DE289-B88C-4CDD-854D-3BFE67D85998@iki.fi>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:50 GMT