W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2010

Re: Removal of other semantic elements

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 13:40:27 -0700
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Message-id: <5345F0FF-4D00-4FF8-BD92-052268B133C7@apple.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>

On Apr 2, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:

>
> To be clear, I feel the same way about the change proposals for
> ISSUE-90, ISSUE-91, ISSUE-93, ISSUE-95 and ISSUE-97 as I do for
> ISSUE-96. I.e. that removing semantic elements and attributes is bad
> for accessibility, even when ARIA can be used to add similar or
> equivalent semantic meaning.
>
> I'm definitely interested to hear what people with more accessibility
> related experience than me think about this.
>
> I believe Steven Faulkner said that he didn't want any other
> "controls" removed from the spec, which I would take to encompass at
> least ISSUE-97. But I'm interested to hear his and others feelings
> regarding the other change proposals too.

Just to give everyone the cheat sheet to the Change Proposals that  
suggest removing elements:

ISSUE-90 - Remove <figure> element
ISSUE-91 - Remove <aside> element
ISSUE-93 - Remove <details> element
ISSUE-96 - Remove <progress> element
ISSUE-97 - Remove <meter> element

And attributes:

ISSUE-95 - Remove hidden=  attribute
ISSUE-100 - Remove srcdoc=  attribute

I note that Jonas did not include ISSUE-100 in his list above,  
presumably because srcdoc exists more for functional/convenience  
reasons than to express semantics. So I am not taking his statement as  
input one way or the other on the ISSUE-100 proposal.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Friday, 2 April 2010 20:41:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:16 UTC