- From: Martin Janecke <w3.org@prlbr.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 23:06:16 +0100
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "lwatson@paciellogroup.com" <lwatson@paciellogroup.com>, "info@3zero.co.uk" <info@3zero.co.uk>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
I agree with Cynthia that the header element is confusing. Right now we have <> section-specific headers, i.e. those scoped to a section, these don't have a role mapping <> website-specific headers, i.e. those scoped to body, these are mapped to the banner role Isn't it strange to have these two but no page-specific headers? Furthermore, as I see it a header scoped to the body that is page-specific would be conceptually the same as a header scoped to a section that is section-specific, but a header scoped to the body that is website specific seems conceptually different to me. Is it good to have two conceptually different things share the same semantic element name? I fear that this will continue to be a source of confusion and will lead to unwanted (?) use of the element (i.e. header scoped to body used for page-specific content). I have no experience with technology that relies on role mappings myself, so I only speculate that this could hurt accessibility. Regards Martin On 30.11.15 19:26, Steve Faulkner wrote: > > On 30 November 2015 at 18:07, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com > <mailto:cyns@microsoft.com>> wrote: > > So, then why have it at all? Shouldn't be expose the role when it > exists? > > > The role mapping only exists when scoped to body, this was discussed, > implemented and is defined in HTML5, > Of course we can revisit, but we need to ensure that UA implementers are > prepared to make changes to current implementations and that any changes > provide a benefit to end users. > > -- > > Regards > > SteveF > Current Standards Work @W3C > <http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-standards-work-at-w3c/>
Received on Monday, 30 November 2015 22:06:46 UTC