- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:43:12 +0100
- To: "Chris Wilson" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "Simon Pieters" <simonp@opera.com>, "Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Jon Gunderson" <jongund@uiuc.edu>, "Aaron M Leventhal" <aleventh@us.ibm.com>, "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>, "Marc Silbey" <marcsil@windows.microsoft.com>, "David Poehlman" <poehlman1@comcast.net>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:28:19 +0100, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com> wrote: > Anne van Kesteren [mailto:annevk@opera.com] wrote: >> No, we should only have DOM attributes when they're part of the >> specification. HTML5 introduces a bunch of them, for instance. But with >> ARIA it was part of the design to not have them. > > I understand they're not in the ARIA spec, and as I said, it was > obviously a mistake that we implemented them. What you said implies > that it was a conscious design decision not to have them - was it > really? Do you not think the HTML5 DOM should expose these attributes > directly, as it does so many other attributes? Right, that is the plan for the reason I gave earlier. I don't really have a position on the matter myself. I just want everyone to do the same :-) > ...but not enough to make you happy with the end solution, given that we > need to continue having X-UA-Compatible in some form in order to give > web developers a quick fix to keep their sites up. True. Kind regards, -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Thursday, 13 March 2008 18:44:00 UTC