Re: Removal of other semantic elements

On Apr 4, 2010, at 2:27 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:

>
>
> My change proposals primarily responded from an accessibility
> perspective because that's how the HTML5 editor styled his rationales
> for rejection--based purely on accessibility. I demonstrated that the
> elements in question aren't _necessary_ for accessibility, because
> ARIA provides an alternative. My demonstration basically refuted his
> rationale that these elements were _essential_ to accessibility in
> HTML5.

In fairness to everyone's arguments, I don't think anyone claimed that  
new elements are essential to accessibility, merely that having them  
is an accessibility improvement relative to not having them.

>
> Would it help if I edited the change proposal to put more of the
> emphasis on custom UI libraries as compared to native elements?

You're welcome to adjust your Change Proposals any way you like to  
make them more persuasive.

If you make a change along the lines described above you may want to  
consider:

(a) Is native element vs. a UI library really an either-or choice? Why  
is it bad to have both?
(b) What if native elements were a useful building block for UI  
libraries (for example by providing a high degree of visual  
customization through CSS, like <input type=text> and <input  
type=button> do in most browsers)?

> It would help if I had arguments specific to custom UI libraries
> versus native elements other than the ones that Ian provided, because
> I'm having to guess what these are. Would it be better to wait until
> counter-proposals and then edit my proposals accordingly?

I don't think you need to worry about refuting future arguments - just  
make a case for why removing the elements and attributes in question  
from HTML5 is on balance an improvement. Your goal should be to  
actively make the case for your proposal, not simply to respond to  
opposing arguments.

>
> I don't want to waste the group's time, but I'm not sure that all of
> the arguments I've given in my proposals have been given due
> consideration, because of the "ARIA versus native element" tangent.
> Which I apologize for aiding and abetting.

If there are other arguments from your rationales that you'd like to  
highlight, I think it would be good to bring those up on the  
discussion thread.

Regards,
Maciej