- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 19:04:40 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>
- cc: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, 7 May 2012, Rafael Weinstein wrote: > > Is it worth separating the issues of fallback behavior and extracting > element semantics? > > It strikes me as unlikely that in practice components *can* be used if > you need to target legacy browsers, and that fallback won't mean much > unless legacy browsers are specifically targeted because proper behavior > will involve different control flow paths (hooking up the right events, > etc..). > > Sorry, if I'm making a leap here or just being stupid. It seems like if > you remove the legacy UAs issue, it opens up a bunch of other options > for extracting semantics (e.g. for indexing or accessibility). If there's better ways we should certainly consider them. We have to bear in mind though that fallback is something most authors don't spend much time on, so the ideal is that having good fallback is _easier_ than not having fallback. We should definitely not end up in a state where you have to do _extra_ work to get fallback. (This is one of the big problems with the way the ARIA spec is designed; it assumes that authors are going to first spend loads of effort making a widget out of <div>s, and _then_ they're going to do even _more_ effort to annotate it with ARIA roles. We don't want to end up in that kind of situation.) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 19:05:13 UTC