W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2008

Re: Next steps for the ARIA syntax discussion

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>
Message-ID: <f5biqx6iax5.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>

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.

- -- 
 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]
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

Received on Thursday, 22 May 2008 16:05:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:31 UTC