- From: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 13:52:22 -0500
- To: "Simon Pieters" <simonp@opera.com>
- Cc: public-html <public-html@w3.org>, public-html-request@w3.org, "w3c-wai-pf@w3.org" <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF11D0DE6A.C7A8982D-ON86257443.00678C59-86257443.0067AC3E@us.ibm.com>
When will the Web Forms 2 datatypes appear in HTML 5? How do they differ from XSD data types? What browsers support the Web Forms 2 data types today? Rich Schwerdtfeger Distinguished Engineer, SWG Accessibility Architect/Strategist Chair, IBM Accessibility Architecture Review Board blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/schwer "Simon Pieters" <simonp@opera.com > To Sent by: public-html <public-html@w3.org>, public-html-reque "w3c-wai-pf@w3.org" st@w3.org <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org> cc 05/08/2008 10:00 Subject AM Replace aria-datatype and evolve contenteditable This email contains two related rough proposals/thoughts for the ARIA spec and the HTML 5 spec: 1. Replace aria-datatype with something that works in HTML. 2. Perhaps evolve HTML 5 contenteditable to support WF2 features. Regarding http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/#datatype aria-datatype seems to be incompatible with HTML requiring QNames with associated namespace declarations being in scope, since text/html doesn't support namespace declarations. (Moreover, it's unclear how to implement aria-datatype and XSD seems suboptimal; see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg-comments/2008JanMar/0062.html .) For ARIA, I'd suggest to align with or adopt data types in Web Forms 2.0, in particular <input type=email>, <input type=url> and the pattern='' attribute. http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#email http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#url http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#pattern (The other values for type='' are not really appliciable, AFAICT.) Since ARIA datatypes are, AIUI, expected to be used on any user editable region, including <div contenteditable=true>, this begs the question as to whether HTML 5 should adopt WF2 type='email', type='url' and pattern='' for contenteditable elements as well. Either they are useful for contenteditable, and HTML 5 should have them, or they are not, and ARIA should restrict its data types to HTML <input> (and <textarea> for pattern='') (in which case, ARIA can simply drop aria-datatype and let the above WF2 features replace it, or adopt the WF2 features without aria- prefix as with tabindex). If the former, then should readonly, disabled, required, etc. also apply to contenteditable? It would make sense as far as AT exposure goes, but contenteditable doesn't take part of WF2 form validation or submission, so it would be a bit inconsistent. Perhaps there should be an attribute on <div> saying that the element is a form control that accepts normal form control related attributes and takes part of form validation and, if the element is successful, submits its innerHTML. (Same with <iframe> in combination with designMode, submitting its contentDocument.innerHTML?) -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Attachments
- image/gif attachment: graycol.gif
- image/gif attachment: pic23658.gif
- image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2008 18:53:07 UTC