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

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

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 22:22:45 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0909092222x13d9e648y7b06040a8aac0c33@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
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 10:15 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Leif Halvard Silli
> <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:
>>> Microdata or the class="" attribute can both be used to annotate HTML
>>> elements with more specific semantics than their native semantics
>>> provide.
>> If - say - AT software is supposed to recognize something as a dialog, then
>> neither of those a likely to be enough.
> I'm personally not at all a fan of using class to add semantics. I
> think the class attribute namespace should belong to authors. That is
> why I was arguing for the removal of predefined class values back when
> they were in the HTML5 drafts.
> However I don't see why something like a microformat or RDFa wouldn't
> be an acceptable way to expose something to AT software. Once that
> microformat or RDFa vocabulary has become popular enough that it gains
> some sort of critical mass that is.

Arg, that should have said "Once that microdata format or RDFa
vocabulary has become..".

I am a big fan of microformats, however I don't like that they many
times use the class attribute. However I understand that they chose to
do that given what "hooks" that HTML4 provided. That's why I'm a fan
of microdata in HTML5 as it provides better hooks.

/ Jonas
Received on Thursday, 10 September 2009 05:23:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:56 UTC