Re: Next steps for the ARIA syntax discussion

-----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