- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 23:30:24 +0200
- To: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
- CC: "'Anne van Kesteren'" <annevk@opera.com>, elharo@metalab.unc.edu, public-html@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org
Justin James 2008-06-04 19.42:
> I think you hit the *exact* same1 realization as I did yesterday. This is
> the heart of my proposal, which is to let the class (or ID, or whatever the
> appropriate CSS definition is) contain the ARIA information.
Actually, no. I suppose you refer to this proposal [1]:
> div.checkbox {aria-role: checkbox;}
> <div class="checkbox">Blah blah blah</div>
>
> The div would be treated as if @aria-role="checkbox" had been
> specified. [...]
You move the aria behaviour out of HTML and into CSS.
I keep everything inside HTML, with a special syntax for the
single aria attribute that I proposed (to replace aria-*).
Class="Checked-true" tells a User Agent nothing. Whereas
aria="checked-true" tells what is needed and gives a hook that can
replace class="checked-true" entirely and easily - it is DRY [2].
Your proposal would not make the ARIA values available as
selectors. And some ARIA properties can list more than one ID, and
it is unhandy to have such info in a separate document.
[1]http://www.w3.org/mid/036901c8c5c9$4d656c50$e83044f0$@com
[2]http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?DontRepeatYourself
--
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2008 21:31:29 UTC