- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 13:40:27 -0700
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
On Apr 2, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > 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. Just to give everyone the cheat sheet to the Change Proposals that suggest removing elements: ISSUE-90 - Remove <figure> element ISSUE-91 - Remove <aside> element ISSUE-93 - Remove <details> element ISSUE-96 - Remove <progress> element ISSUE-97 - Remove <meter> element And attributes: ISSUE-95 - Remove hidden= attribute ISSUE-100 - Remove srcdoc= attribute I note that Jonas did not include ISSUE-100 in his list above, presumably because srcdoc exists more for functional/convenience reasons than to express semantics. So I am not taking his statement as input one way or the other on the ISSUE-100 proposal. Regards, Maciej
Received on Friday, 2 April 2010 20:41:02 UTC