- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 15:52:00 -0700
- To: mark.birbeck@x-port.net
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On May 22, 2007, at 3:41 PM, Mark Birbeck wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > > I actually think Dmitry is exactly right. > > One is much more likely to want to say 'the third div is the footer' > or that 'certain spans are check-boxes', than to have to put @role on > each element. However, the ideal solution would be to have the > capacity to to set properties on elements both directly *and* > indirectly, the latter being done via CSS rules. > > The properties set by CSS rules are available via the DOM anyway, so > there is nothing to say that CSS must be about styling. CSS can't define document semantics, because it has to be possible to set a different stylesheet on the same document without affecting the semantics. Therefore a role CSS property would violate the architecture of CSS and the goal of separating semantics and presentation, even more so than presentational HTML elements. (Side note: it's in general a bad thing to say "certain spans are check-boxes" instead of using <input type="checkbox">, but if you wanted to do that, you'd likely want a hook for styling or scripting, and what's most convenient for that is a class value, which really argues for predefined class values if you want to be able to turn non- checkbox elements into checkboxes for accessibility purposes.) Regards, Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2007 22:52:14 UTC