- From: Léonie Watson <lwatson@paciellogroup.com>
- Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 10:54:02 -0000
- To: "'Bryan Garaventa'" <bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com>, "'W3C WAI Protocols & Formats'" <public-pfwg@w3.org>
Bryan Garaventa wrote: "I guess the part that sounds unclear to me, is that when it states "designed to be complementary to the main content at a similar level in the DOM hierarchy", it seems to be saying that role=complementary should not be included within the main content, such as within a role=main container." It does seem that way. It might also explain why "complimentary" has always felt like an awkward fit for the <aside> element. Outside of HTML "aside" and "complimentary" have quite distinct meanings. The definitions for the role and element respectively seem to capture those differences. It's the mapping that doesn't seem to fit. At the risk of opening a can of worms, are we too late to introduce an aside role? What would complimentary be used for if we did? Léonie. -- Senior Accessibility Engineer, TPG @LeonieWatson @PacielloGroup
Received on Sunday, 23 November 2014 10:54:27 UTC