- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 14:17:06 +0200
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "Aaron M Leventhal" <aleventh@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "public-xhtml2@w3.org" <public-xhtml2@w3.org>, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org, "wai-xtech@w3.org" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Thu, 29 May 2008 13:51:08 +0200, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2008/04/ARIA-Testing/uct-colon-html.html
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2008/04/ARIA-Testing/uct-colon-xhtml.html
These scripts use setAttribute("arai:...") / getAttribute("aria:..."). As
I already explained in my initial e-mail to this debacle that breaks in
XML. It also prevents HTML from ever doing anything useful with the colon.
It also encourages user agents to do something with the tagName rather
than the localName + namespaceURI which would be quite a disaster.
> These tests were converted from the 'aria-' iCITA examples using the
> above methodology, very easily, and work in IE 7 as well as Firefox,
> Opera and Safari (and, with an edited and rebuilt accessibility
> module in Firefox 3b5, with the ORCA screen-reader).
These tests are HTML-only, use class names to work around styling
deficiencies of your proposal and don't demonstrate at all that aria: is
somehow a better alternative to aria- in my opinion.
I would appreciate a detailed reply to my original e-mail, although it has
to be said that these recent e-mail exchanges helpfully only further prove
my point:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008May/0042.html
Kind regards,
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2008 12:17:35 UTC