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: Phil Spencer <phil.spencer@digforfiredmg.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:39:24 +0000
To: "Schnabel, Stefan" <stefan.schnabel@sap.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Lars Gunther <gunther@keryx.se>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C720A74C.1E74%phil.spencer@digforfiredmg.co.uk>
It is valid to have a link WITHIN the heading (either all or part of it)?
e.g.

<h1>Page about <a href="http://www.google.com">google</a></h1>

I've just used the W3C validator and it seems fine (xhtml 1.0 transitional)

I don't have any issue with this semantically.


On 11/11/2009 09:07, "Schnabel, Stefan" <stefan.schnabel@sap.com> wrote:

> Sorry guys,
> 
> this discussion is a little bit wired and comes far too late.
> 
> Since HTML4 came out it was possible to "sell" a Heading as a link by doing
> 
> <A href="someref"><H2> Details Chapter</H2></A>
> 
> Why hasn't anybody complained before? Why now for ARIA? I don't understand.
> 
> There are SO MANY examples of HTML misuse without ARIA.
> ARIA is to bridge the gap, not to enlarge it.
> 
> Regards
> Stefan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wai-xtech-request@w3.org [mailto:wai-xtech-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
> Leif Halvard Silli
> Sent: Dienstag, 10. November 2009 20:38
> To: Tab Atkins Jr.
> Cc: John Foliot; Charles McCathieNevile; Jonas Sicking; Lars Gunther; Shelley
> Powers; HTMLWG WG; W3C WAI-XTECH
> Subject: Re: ARIA roles added to the a element should be conforming in HTML5.
> 
> Tab Atkins Jr. On 09-11-10 19.46:
> 
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:34 PM, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> wrote:
>>> We all can pretty much agree that making an <h1> a 'button' doesn't really
>>> make a whole lot of semantic sense,
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
>> Since I brought up that example, that sort of markup actually isn't a
>> bad idea in my opinion.  Now it would probably be better done with
>> <details>, but when that didn't exist a <div><h1/><p/></div> was a
>> good approximation of the semantics.  In some cases it still might be
>> better semantically, for example if you were implementing a tab-based
>> interface in js.
>> 
>> *Is* it most helpful to convey to ATs that the heading is a button in
>> that example?  Are there better ways to do it?  You really
>> can't/shouldn't use an actual <button> in the example, because it's
>> *not* semantically a button, it's a heading.  It's only when you bring
>> behavior into the mix that acquires a slightly different character.
> 
> 
> I would think that the reason that you shouldn't use a button is
> because it isn't a  button because it isn't inside a form.
> 
> Well, it is still a button - even outside a <form>, but a button
> outside the form element - what use is that? Why doesn't HTML 5
> say that it is invalid, like HTML 4 does?
Received on Wednesday, 11 November 2009 17:40:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 13:16:07 GMT