Response to your comments on Role Attribute

Dear Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis:

Thank you for your comments on the 12 July 2012 Candidate Recommendation of
Role Attribute (http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-role-attribute-20120712/). The
Protocols and Formats Working Group has reviewed all comments received on
the draft. We would like to know whether we have understood your comments
correctly and whether you are satisfied with our resolutions.

Please review our resolutions for the following comments, and reply to us
to say whether you accept them or to discuss additional concerns you have
with our response. You may do this by email to public-pfwg-comments@w3.org
(be sure to reference our comment ID so we can track your response). Note
that this list is publicly archived.

Please see below for the text of comments that you submitted and our
resolutions to your comments. 

Note that if you still strongly disagree with our resolution on an issue,
you have the opportunity to file a formal objection (according to 3.3.2 of
the W3C Process, at
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews)
to public-pfwg-comments@w3.org. Formal objections will be reviewed during
the candidate recommendation transition meeting with the W3C Director,
unless we can come to agreement with you on a resolution in advance of the
meeting.

Thank you for your time reviewing and sending comments. Though we cannot
always do exactly what each commenter requests, all of the comments are
valuable to the development of Role Attribute.

Regards,

Janina Sajka, PFWG Chair
Michael Cooper, PFWG Staff Contact


Comment 386: Outdated example of "good, appropriate use of the role attribute"
Date: 2012-07-13
Archived at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg-comments/2012JulSep/0000.html
Relates to: Role Attribute <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-role-attribute-20120712/>

-------------
Your comment:
-------------
Re: Role Attribute 1.0: W3C Candidate Recommendation 12 July 2012
http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-role-attribute-20120712/

This draft says:

> Although the role attribute may be used to add semantics to an element,
authors should use elements with inherent semantics, such as p, rather than
layering semantics on semantically neutral elements, such as div
role="paragraph".
>
> The following is an example of a good, appropriate use of the role
attribute:
>
> <ul role="navigation">
>    <li href="downloads">Downloads</li>
>    <li href="docs">Documentation</li>
>    <li href="news">News</li>
> </ul>

HTML5 includes an element with these inherent semantics ("nav" element):

    http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/the-nav-element.html#the-nav-element

So this is no longer a "good, appropriate use" according to the
preceding criteria of preferring elements with inherent semantics.

--------------------------------
Response from the Working Group:
--------------------------------
We have changed the example to be one that would be more useful in an HTML
5 context. The example is:

<div role="main">
  <h1>This is the main content of the page</h1>
  <p>Here is some content that is the primary purpose of this web
page.</p>
</div>

Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2012 18:40:31 UTC