Re: Next steps for the ARIA syntax discussion

On Fri, 23 May 2008 12:54:32 +0200, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>  
wrote:
> Aaron M Leventhal writes:
>> I want to ensure that everyone understands the proposal clearly:
>> HT is advocating that the DOM starts out one way and changes to another,
>> for the same property value combination.
>
> Please be careful when you put words in my mouth.  Not advocating,
> simply observing that this happens in some (quite limited, actually)
> circumstances.  The observed change happens _only_ if you introduce an
> aria: attribute into an XML DOM by parsing a document with such an
> attribute present, _remove_ the resulting attr node programmatically
> using removeAttribute, and then add it back using setAttribute.  This
> has got to be a pretty unusual sequence of events: by far the more
> common pattern is to use setAttribute only to change the value, and
> that does _not_ provoke the change we're talking about.

Actually, the majority case will be libraries. Libraries create widget  
constructs entirely using script so the common pattern is probably not to  
use setAttribute solely to change the value.

Also, doing it like that is a hack, because the document author might have  
used another prefix, etc. Using aria-* this problem does not arise. I went  
into more detail on this in a previous e-mail I sent:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008May/0042.html


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>

Received on Friday, 23 May 2008 11:18:48 UTC