- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 00:56:41 +1000
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > But why _haven't_ WHATwg proposed to remove it? FOR/ID and HEADERS/ID > are twins - they're there for the same reasons! Although they are both forms of explicit association, they're not included for the same reason. These are some additional reasons for including for="" that do not apply to headers="". * Allows for labels and controls to be separated, which allows for more flexibility in the structure and style of the page. * Increased usability by allowing users to click on the label to focus the control. That's particularly important for checkboxes and radio buttons. * It is very widely used in reality. > It is logically inconsistent to keep the one combination that happens > to assists sighted persons (FOR/ID), while at the same time propose > to remove the one that (due to lack of follow-up of what HTML4 > actually proposes) _only_ assists visually impaired (HEADERS/ID). I disagree about it being logically inconsistent because of that rather significant difference, but regardless of that, it seems likely that the headers attribute will be added in due course. > Lesson: To make HTML «accessible by design», it would be a good > strategy strive to ensure that accessibilty elements/attributes also > assists sighted persons. Yes, whenever possible, that's a reasonable strategy to follow. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2007 14:57:05 UTC