- From: Dão Gottwald <dao@design-noir.de>
- Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 17:34:01 +0200
- To: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>
- CC: mark.birbeck@x-port.net, public-html@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
John Foliot - WATS.ca schrieb: > Mark Birbeck wrote: >> But secondly, I would say that using @class rather than the role >> attribute to carry values that are about the structure of a document, >> could appear to be an example of the 'not invented here' mindset. I'm >> sure it's not, but I would urge people to consider @role for this >> task, since: >> >> * @role was created specifically to allow authors to say what an >> element's purpose is; >> >> * it was further motivated by trying to provide an 'unpolluted' >> value space so that there would be no ambiguities; >> >> * it is available as a standalone module that can be used in >> different mark-up languages; >> >> * it has been added to Firefox already. >> > > !!! Thank you Mark!!! > > I might also suggest that @role is endorsed and supported by the Mozilla > Foundation, that the ARIA Suite (which is leaning on @role to achieve it's > goals) is funded in part by the good folks at IBM, and emerging as > significant in the accessibility of AJAX technologies, and it's built-in > ability to scale out via RDF is exactly what the semantic proponents are > suggesting we need. > > New Question: given that @role *is* an important part of Accessible Rich > Internet Applications (or at least emerging as such), if HTML 5 *does not* > support @role, what then of this work, and of accessibility? Or are we > stepping backwards here too? Since the role attribute has never been part of HTML, I don't see how leaving it out could be a retrograde step. I have no knowledge of those applications, but they could obviously continue to work as they do today. Furthermore they could start using the class attribute, if appropriate. --Dao
Received on Monday, 7 May 2007 15:34:13 UTC