- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 19:04:09 +1000
- To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- Cc: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer > <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: >> Here is the first draft of a proposal that we've recently started >> discussing at Google: >> >> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposal/Issue194_SP >> >> Please read with an open mind and feel free to make suggestions for improvement. > > If we're going to reuse @for and @id, we should probably make the > following work as well to match how these attributes work with > <label>: > > <transcript> > <video id=v1 src=video.mp4></video> > <p>This is a on-page transcript.</p> > </transcript> If we use @for, then this indeed makes sense. What is your opinion between the choice of @for and @transcript? > There might be rationale to make the following work as well: > > <video id=v1 src=video.mp4></video> > <transcript> > <p>This is a on-page transcript.</p> > </transcript> > > <label>Label</label><input> > > <label>Label</label><select></select> > > <input type="checkbox"><label>Label</label> > > <input type="radio"><label>Label</label> > > But this would need testing for compatibility with the existing corpus. Is that one suggestion or 5? Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2012 09:05:03 UTC