- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:51:14 -0700
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, "W3C WAI Protocols & Formats" <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Steve Faulkner
<faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
> thanks tab,
>
> that doesn't happen and agree it shouldn't happen.
>
> aren't the CSS hooks based on the tag/attribute names etc in the DOM?
No. The specs defer to the host language and says things like:
"The document language determines which elements are hyperlink source
anchors" [1]
and
"What constitutes an enabled state, a disabled state, and a user
interface element is language-dependent" [2]
So if ARIA can be argued to be part of the host language, which I
think is the case here since HTML5 explicitly supports ARIA, then we
need to define if ARIA affects the elements such that they are
considered links/enabled/etc in the relevant contexts.
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/selector.html#link-pseudo-classes
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-selectors/#enableddisabled
> you can have styles associated using the aria attribute names, but
> that has nothing to do with their function only that they are
> recognised bits in the DOM right?
Correct.
> so you can do
> a[role] {
> color : red ;
> }
>
>
> but that is no different from doing
>
> a[hreflang] {
> color : blue ;
> }
>
> the semantics of the attribute makes no difference right?
Correct.
> or is use of role/aria-* soemthing that should not be allowed?
No, I don't see a reason to special-case these attributes here.
Attribute selectors should work directly on the DOM, without reading
any semantics into them. That makes for simpler and saner use as well
as implementation.
/ Jonas
Received on Monday, 21 March 2011 21:52:21 UTC