W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > February 2009

Re: ARIA style sheet

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:26:15 +0900
To: "Chris Blouch" <cblouch@aol.com>, "James Craig" <jcraig@apple.com>
Cc: "Chris Blouch" <chris.blouch@corp.aol.com>, "'W3C WAI-XTECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.upye91h164w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook.local>
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:30:11 +0900, Chris Blouch <cblouch@aol.com> wrote:
> I need to make a retraction in that the actual author is Stuart  
> Langridge who came up with the solution in response to a presentation by  
> Matt Machell. That said, Stuart has posted some clarity on what his  
> solution is and is not. I believe he argues for himself more clearly  
> than I did:
>
> http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2009/02/25/updates-on-the-aria-stylesheet-hack

I still think the right answer is XBL.

As for this points under 4:

  1. This is also true for e.g. event handlers. XBL solves this.
  2. <link rel="aria"> is not valid either. Also, by the time this would
     actually work in browsers I'm sure we fixed validation for ARIA.
     (In fact, I think validator.nu already validates it to quite some
     extend today.)
  3. ARIA is typically for applications that do not really have lots of
     pages so this argument is dubious. Besides that extra network hits
     are costly. Anyway, XBL solves this too.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 26 February 2009 10:27:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 13:16:01 GMT