W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > August 2015

ARIA or RDFA?

From: lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 17:49:29 +0300
To: "public-cognitive-a11y-tf" <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <14ef4081634.119b7a09062858.3229774712380678087@zoho.com>
Liddies proposal was to use RDFa whereever possible inplace of an aria extentionThe simplese case would look like&lt;button type="button" property="http://scehma.org/coga/terms/save"&gt;default&lt;/button&gt;in place of


&lt;button type="button" aria-function="undo" &gt;default&lt;/button&gt;



There are many ways to write it such as 
&lt;body vocab="http://scehma.org/coga/terms "&gt;&lt;button type="button" property="save"&gt;default&lt;/button&gt;this might make it harder for simple user agents to parse and manipulate it. I also think in some cases it makes it more complex to use.
I do not think  everything will work as RDFa such as aria-importance or aria-numberfree, so we would still be doing an aria extension.




I think we should look at the metadata  and see if there is a more RDF compatible way to write it. However the linked data inline should be only for easyread alternatives.  


All the best

Lisa Seeman

Athena ICT Accessibility Projects 
LinkedIn, Twitter
Received on Monday, 3 August 2015 14:49:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:13:28 UTC