W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > November 2005

<address role="">? (was RE: p in address tag?)

From: John Foliot - WATS.ca <foliot@wats.ca>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 09:29:59 -0500
To: "'Orion Adrian'" <orion.adrian@gmail.com>, <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <008001c5e603$3f9be980$6601a8c0@bosshog>

Orion Adrian wrote:
> I think we have to be very careful here with @role.
> We have to precisely differentiate between classification and role.
> Classification seems to specify a is-a relationship while role seems
> to specify serves-as-the which has a subtle difference.  
> @role seems to specify unique portions of the page while
> class(ification) and the element name specify the generic formatting
> structure for that element (paragraph, heading, list, etc.) 


The issue as I see it is that we need to be able to granularly define
the ADDRESS element, essentially applying some metadata to it.  We
further need to be able to create new definitions as required.  

I'm still not sure if @role wouldn't serve this purpose, as I *am* in
effect declaring the "serves-as-the" function (or role) of a particular
instance of the ADDRESS element.  The class attribute is too weak for
this, as I understand the attribute, and further lacks a mechanism to be
"extended" with metadata AFAIK.

I don't see any other metainformation attributes that could work
) with the same flexibility (@property?) as the @role attribute.  (I
concede however that I may be pushing the boundaries of what the XHTML2
authors envisioned with @role, which was to extend accessibility to the
ACCESS element - don't get me started there <grin>)

John Foliot  foliot@wats.ca
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
Phone: 1-613-482-7053  
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2005 14:30:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:12 UTC