- From: Phil Spencer <phil.spencer@digforfiredmg.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:39:24 +0000
- To: "Schnabel, Stefan" <stefan.schnabel@sap.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Lars Gunther <gunther@keryx.se>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
It is valid to have a link WITHIN the heading (either all or part of it)? e.g. <h1>Page about <a href="http://www.google.com">google</a></h1> I've just used the W3C validator and it seems fine (xhtml 1.0 transitional) I don't have any issue with this semantically. On 11/11/2009 09:07, "Schnabel, Stefan" <stefan.schnabel@sap.com> wrote: > Sorry guys, > > this discussion is a little bit wired and comes far too late. > > Since HTML4 came out it was possible to "sell" a Heading as a link by doing > > <A href="someref"><H2> Details Chapter</H2></A> > > Why hasn't anybody complained before? Why now for ARIA? I don't understand. > > There are SO MANY examples of HTML misuse without ARIA. > ARIA is to bridge the gap, not to enlarge it. > > Regards > Stefan > > -----Original Message----- > From: wai-xtech-request@w3.org [mailto:wai-xtech-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of > Leif Halvard Silli > Sent: Dienstag, 10. November 2009 20:38 > To: Tab Atkins Jr. > Cc: John Foliot; Charles McCathieNevile; Jonas Sicking; Lars Gunther; Shelley > Powers; HTMLWG WG; W3C WAI-XTECH > Subject: Re: ARIA roles added to the a element should be conforming in HTML5. > > Tab Atkins Jr. On 09-11-10 19.46: > >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:34 PM, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> wrote: >>> We all can pretty much agree that making an <h1> a 'button' doesn't really >>> make a whole lot of semantic sense, > > > [...] > > >> Since I brought up that example, that sort of markup actually isn't a >> bad idea in my opinion. Now it would probably be better done with >> <details>, but when that didn't exist a <div><h1/><p/></div> was a >> good approximation of the semantics. In some cases it still might be >> better semantically, for example if you were implementing a tab-based >> interface in js. >> >> *Is* it most helpful to convey to ATs that the heading is a button in >> that example? Are there better ways to do it? You really >> can't/shouldn't use an actual <button> in the example, because it's >> *not* semantically a button, it's a heading. It's only when you bring >> behavior into the mix that acquires a slightly different character. > > > I would think that the reason that you shouldn't use a button is > because it isn't a button because it isn't inside a form. > > Well, it is still a button - even outside a <form>, but a button > outside the form element - what use is that? Why doesn't HTML 5 > say that it is invalid, like HTML 4 does?
Received on Wednesday, 11 November 2009 17:40:07 UTC