- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 15:07:32 +0200
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Aaron M Leventhal" <aleventh@us.ibm.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@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>
On Thu, 29 May 2008 14:54:51 +0200, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > Anne van Kesteren writes: >> On Thu, 29 May 2008 13:51:08 +0200, Henry S. Thompson >> <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>> These tests were converted from the 'aria-' iCITA examples using the >>> above methodology, very easily, and work in IE 7 as well as Firefox, >>> Opera and Safari (and, with an edited and rebuilt accessibility >>> module in Firefox 3b5, with the ORCA screen-reader). >> >> These tests are HTML-only, use class names to work around styling >> deficiencies of your proposal and don't demonstrate at all that aria: >> is somehow a better alternative to aria- in my opinion. > > Not so, please look again, there are two identical files, one served > as text/html and the other as application/xhtml+xml. They both work. Very well, I should've been more careful. Though again, it relies on class names to work around styling deficiencies of your proposal and doesn't demonstrate that aria: is better than aria-. Just that it's more complex. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2008 13:08:03 UTC