- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 17:03:02 +0100
- To: Aaron M Leventhal <aleventh@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, public-html-request@w3.org, "public-xhtml2@w3.org" <public-xhtml2@w3.org>, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org, "wai-xtech@w3.org" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Aaron M Leventhal writes: > HST wrote: >> AML wrote: >> > I'm very concerned that there is not a realistic view about how >> > much this will hurt authors. >> >> I agree that if things were as bad as you thought they were, that >> would be a problem. But I hope I've shown above that they are _not_ >> as bad as you thought. > > You don't think the fact that I got 2 different DOMs for the same > attribute in my XHTML is a problem? That happens when your instructions > are followed correct[ly]? Not a problem for most users, no, because as long as they stick to doing set/get/removeAttribute("aria:...") they will never notice that (in Firefox) the DOM sometimes starts out one way and changes to another. What's crucial is that in both states the relevant attribute has the _same_ nodeName, that is, "aria:checked". That means it's not a problem for browser/assistive API interface implementors either. ht - -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh Half-time member of W3C Team 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFINZk2kjnJixAXWBoRAnJUAJ9Ih/5bNUVstYh63zeUs1YX+U6bagCcC81t 9DyAqsW2Xx+tqVa+7EsMXqE= =TgoS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 22 May 2008 16:05:06 UTC