- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 12:24:15 -0700
- To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > > On Apr 1, 2010, at 12:01 PM, Shelley Powers wrote: > >> This discussion is become circular, evidently most people disagree >> with me. That's fine. I don't agree, but will take my arguments >> elsewhere. >> >> Most of my proposals were about removing these so-called "semantic >> elements". If the co-chairs want to close these proposals, since no >> one agrees with me, that's fine too. > > The Chairs are very much interested in seeing the level of support or > opposition for this proposal, and the other similar proposals for removing > elements. That would be useful feedback for determining the next action. > > So far, my read on this discussion is that a number of people disagree with > the proposal, some have expressed concerns without taking a firm stance, and > no one besides Shelley has voiced support. So far, I have not seen direct > comments on the other proposals. > > We will be monitoring the ongoing discussion. To be clear, I feel the same way about the change proposals for ISSUE-90, ISSUE-91, ISSUE-93, ISSUE-95 and ISSUE-97 as I do for ISSUE-96. I.e. that removing semantic elements and attributes is bad for accessibility, even when ARIA can be used to add similar or equivalent semantic meaning. I'm definitely interested to hear what people with more accessibility related experience than me think about this. I believe Steven Faulkner said that he didn't want any other "controls" removed from the spec, which I would take to encompass at least ISSUE-97. But I'm interested to hear his and others feelings regarding the other change proposals too. / Jonas
Received on Friday, 2 April 2010 19:25:03 UTC