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

RE: ARIA roles added to the a element should be conforming in HTML5.

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 11:36:24 -0800 (PST)
To: "'Jonas Sicking'" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "'Richard Schwerdtfeger'" <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "'HTMLWG WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, <public-html-request@w3.org>, "'W3C WAI-XTECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Message-ID: <02d801ca5fe1$93085e80$b9191b80$@edu>
Jonas Sicking wrote:
> Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>> All we are doing is allowing the author to convey their intent. Do I
> wish
>> authors would use html elements for their purpose? Of course. That is
> not
>> the world we live in. Whether we believe something is a cowpath is
> really
>> irrelevant. Industry thought HTML was only for documents in 1998 too.
> Do you have any reason to believe that we'll be more successful in
> asking authors to add a role attribute to the <a> than in asking them
> to change to use a more appropriate element?

Hi Jonas,

We really have no reason to believe any given author will do anything
right *or* wrong; experience tells us to expect both. The real question
is, why impose limits when we don't really need to? Think inclusive, not

We can see JS libraries do that (add a role attribute to the <a>) for the
author if/when required (as one use-case: ARIA is/was designed primarily
for "DHTML / AJAX").  Moreover, what real harm is caused by allowing to do
so?  We can't envision all uses that authors might dream up moving
forward: look at Bespin and Canvas - nobody really envisioned Bespin like
use when Canvas was spec'd, yet here we are today. 

Received on Saturday, 7 November 2009 19:37:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:51:42 UTC