- From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 17:40:52 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "'Edward O'Connor'" <hober0@gmail.com>, "'Toby Inkster'" <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Cc: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Edward O'Connor wrote: > > Hi, > > Toby wrote: > > Possibly @role could be re-used. (@role isn't just an ARIA attribute, > it's > > intended to be used in other ways too.) > > You may be confusing ARIA's role="" attribute with the XHTML Role > Attribute Module. They are separate, distinct attributes. Insofar as the > current HTML5 draft goes, role=""'s sole use within HTML is for > specifying ARIA roles on elements. Confusing or remembering? Despite the general disdain held by large swaths of the HTML unwashed, there were some very good ideas inside of XHTML2 that got dumped, just like the proverbial baby in the bath-water - @role being one of them. ARIA's appropriation of the @role attribute was from XHTML2 for sure, but the *idea* that @role represents is a powerful one, and is exceedingly more powerful (and remember-able) than using the meaningless class attribute notation currently in vogue. It *should* be considered more extensively, but we already can hear the moaning and growling from the peanut gallery (especially from the microformats camp). Too bad really: consider the 'issue' with accesskeys and mapping to keyless devices or international keyboards... if, instead of mapping a key to a function/feature you could instead state a Role, then the user agent could handle the binding on its own terms, rather than on terms forced by the content author. JF
Received on Thursday, 10 September 2009 00:41:32 UTC