Re: ARIA's role="" attribute (was Re: [Bug 7509] Consider <dl type="dialog"> instead of <dialog>)

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:40 PM, John Foliot <> wrote:
> Edward O'Connor wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Toby wrote:
>> > Possibly @role could be re-used. (@role isn't just an ARIA attribute,
>> it's
>> > intended to be used in other ways too.)
>> You may be confusing ARIA's role="" attribute with the XHTML Role
>> Attribute Module. They are separate, distinct attributes. Insofar as the
>> current HTML5 draft goes, role=""'s sole use within HTML is for
>> specifying ARIA roles on elements.
> Confusing or remembering? Despite the general disdain held by large swaths
> of the HTML unwashed, there were some very good ideas inside of XHTML2 that
> got dumped, just like the proverbial baby in the bath-water - @role being
> one of them.
> ARIA's appropriation of the @role attribute was from XHTML2 for sure, but
> the *idea* that @role represents is a powerful one, and is exceedingly more
> powerful (and remember-able) than using the meaningless class attribute
> notation currently in vogue.  It *should* be considered more extensively,
> but we already can hear the moaning and growling from the peanut gallery
> (especially from the microformats camp).  Too bad really: consider the
> 'issue' with accesskeys and mapping to keyless devices or international
> keyboards... if, instead of mapping a key to a function/feature you could
> instead state a Role, then the user agent could handle the binding on its
> own terms, rather than on terms forced by the content author.

It seems silly to give up on a proposal before it's even made... I for
one am definitely interested in seeing any proposal that anyone thinks
would be good for the web.

/ Jonas

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2009 05:11:34 UTC