- From: Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexander@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:02:44 +0800
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Chris Blouch <cblouch@aol.com>, James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>, Chris Blouch <chris.blouch@corp.aol.com>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
I would tend to agree XBL seems to be more appropriate here. Firefox has several examples of ARIA + XBL usage, these are XUL and XFroms control elements. Is there more or less complex examples how ARIA styles could help? Alex Surkov. On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > 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 14:03:24 UTC