- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:01:43 -0800
- To: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Sorry to bring this up again, but can we please please please use a different term than "shadow DOM". "Shadow DOM" is already used for a very different thing in XBL2, and I'm worried about confusion. Several other terms have been suggested, such as "Fallback DOM", "DOM inside <canvas>", "Accessibility DOM", "Accessibility tree", "fallback tree". I think this would be beneficial for both XBL2 and for the accessibility discussions not to have these things confused. Best Regards, Jonas Sicking Mozilla On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote: > Ian, others, > > We are working on canvas accessibility for the shadow DOM and I am working > with the Mozilla team on the shadow DOM approach with some sample code from > Microsoft. > > As we discussed, the use of media query of alternative content I am working > to pull over a standard set of attributes from the IMS Access For All > specification. It was suggested that we preface these with an aria-, however > these are not part of the aria specification and preceding these with an > aria- dash would not give credit to the IMS Access For All effort. > > I raised the suggestion that these be preceded with afa- but we agreed this > would require agreement from the working group. > > For example, one attribute would be AdaptationType and we would define an > equivalent CSS Media query property for it. > > What's the group on using afa- to preamble each attribute name? ... or > should we just include the attributes without the afa-? > > As was requested they would not be limited to canvas content selection and > at the moment I see no naming conflicts with existing HTML 5 attributes. > > Rich > > > Rich Schwerdtfeger > Distinguished Engineer, SWG Accessibility Architect/Strategist
Received on Wednesday, 3 February 2010 22:02:36 UTC