Re: ARIA Proposal

Joshua,

Integrating all of ARIA into generic HTML 5 elements is not practical 
right now. Please check the FAQ and see if that helps you understand why:
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/ARIA:_Accessible_Rich_Internet_Applications/Relationship_to_HTML_FAQ

As for "aria-role" instead of "role", we'll reply to Matthew's email.

- Aaron

Aaron Leventhal
IBM web accessibility architect
Mozilla accessiblity lead
http://www.mozilla.org/access




Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie> 
Sent by: public-html-request@w3.org
09/27/2007 08:25 AM
Please respond to
joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie


To
Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
cc
public-xhtml2@w3.org, public-html <public-html@w3.org>, Simon Pieters 
<simonp@opera.com>, wai-xtech@w3.org
Subject
Re: ARIA Proposal







I don't wish to speak out of turn here as there are many on this list
who know more about this stuff than I do but it seems to me that using
something that specifically says "This is an ARIA attribute" may be
easier to author as it's origin/purpose etc is explicit by the use of
the ARIA prefix. So from that perspective what Mathew suggests;

| <div aria-role="checkbox" aria-checked="true"></div>

looks like a good idea. Or should the ARIA states/properties be authored
as more generic type elements that are hardwired into the spec rather
like the way heading and list elements or proposed elements a la
<figure> currently are?

Josh