W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xhtml2@w3.org > September 2007

[ignore prev. message] [was: Re: role cardinality [was: Re: ARIA Proposal ]]

From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:27:11 -0400
Message-Id: <p0611040bc321c1bf900e@[192.168.1.100]>
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "Simon Pieters" <simonp@opera.com>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>, public-xhtml2@w3.org, "wai-xtech@w3.org" <wai-xtech@w3.org>

At 10:01 PM +0200 27 09 2007, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
>All definitions are linked. Although maybe a normative reference at 
>the end would be good.

Ah, I see.  My bad.

"unordered set of space-separated tokens"  is linked.   My myopia.  I 
was looking for
a link for 'HTML5'.

Al

>>
>On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:34:20 +0200, Al Gilman 
><Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org> wrote:
>>>The reason the proposal says to only use the first value is 
>>>because it is unclear what browsers are to do with multiple values 
>>>at this point.
>>
>>Place in DOM, for starters.
>
>The proposal doesn't limit that in any way. In fact, placing in the 
>DOM is done at the parsing level. This is done at the processing 
>level of the created nodes.
>
>>>>* forward reference to HTML5 for the definition of 'token' in the
>>>>list-of-tokens value for the role attribute is a problem.
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>>Unnecessary ambiguity in the definition of the proposal.
>
>It's actually really accurate because of this, which is a good thing 
>for interoperability testing. I'm not sure what makes you say it's 
>ambigu. It also makes it a lot more consistent with the rest of the 
>HTML language.
>
>>Please give us a link to a definition.
>
>All definitions are linked. Although maybe a normative reference at 
>the end would be good.
>
>
>--
>Anne van Kesteren
><http://annevankesteren.nl/>
><http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2007 20:27:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 February 2010 18:12:46 GMT