W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2009

Re: ARIA roles added to the a element should be conforming in HTML5.

From: T.V Raman <raman@google.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:01:29 -0700
Message-ID: <19167.37577.468578.535820@retriever.mtv.corp.google.com>
To: jonas@sicking.cc
Cc: faulkner.steve@gmail.com, mjs@apple.com, public-html@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org

Sad but true, I'd answer yes to your question. ARIA  was designed
to patch up bad HTML  usage --- that is  where it coems from, and
that is its role (no pun intended)

Jonas Sicking writes:
 > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 1:45 AM, Steven Faulkner
 > <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
 > > hi maciej,
 > >>I think <button> is pretty consistently fully stylable cross-browser
 > >> (unlike, say, <input type="button">).
 > > This is really incidental to the issue being discussed, most, if not all
 > > html elements can be scripted and styled in a way that overides their native
 > > semantic
 > > If this is allowed, then it follows that the addition of ARIA roles
 > > should$( > > incidental to the developers$( > 
 > Couldn't the same argument be made for any other element as well? Does
 > this mean that we should allow ARIA roles on all elements?
 > 
 > I guess there still are a few exceptions, like <script>, <style>, and <form>.
 > 
 > But for example <h1> can be overridden to look and act like a button
 > or a link, does this mean that we should allow arbitrary ARIA on <h1>?
 > 
 > / Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 23:02:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:01 UTC