- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:36:15 +0200
- To: achuter@technosite.es
- Cc: "Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich" <k.scheppe@telekom.de>, "Public MWBP" <public-bpwg@w3.org>
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 08:55:24 +0200, Alan Chuter <achuter@technosite.es>
wrote:
> Hi Kai, Chaals, group,
>
> There is a detailed description to this in WCAG 2.0 [1]. It seems a
> shame to be reinventing the wheel here.
Yes, referring to that makes sense too.
> I would question the appropriateness of using HTML5 for the examples
> while it is still a draft.
I'm not at all wedded to it being HTML5 (and I think the fragments are
valid XHTML as well, but didn't check them). But they should be checked
for validity against the relevant dialect before we claim they are
whatever our preferred markup is :)
> "User-visible input element" would be more accurate as "element for user
> input" or "input element for user interaction". Not all users see the
> form.
Sure.
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group
je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Thursday, 17 September 2009 10:37:01 UTC