- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 22:10:32 -0700
- To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Cc: "Edward O'Connor" <hober0@gmail.com>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:40 PM, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> 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