- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 14:20:28 +0100
- To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "Aaron M Leventhal" <aleventh@us.ibm.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "public-xhtml2@w3.org" <public-xhtml2@w3.org>, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org, "wai-xtech@w3.org" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Anne van Kesteren writes: > On Thu, 29 May 2008 14:54:51 +0200, Henry S. Thompson > <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >> Anne van Kesteren writes: >>> On Thu, 29 May 2008 13:51:08 +0200, Henry S. Thompson >>> <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>>> These tests were converted from the 'aria-' iCITA examples using the >>>> above methodology, very easily, and work in IE 7 as well as Firefox, >>>> Opera and Safari (and, with an edited and rebuilt accessibility >>>> module in Firefox 3b5, with the ORCA screen-reader). >>> >>> These tests are HTML-only, use class names to work around styling >>> deficiencies of your proposal and don't demonstrate at all that aria: >>> is somehow a better alternative to aria- in my opinion. >> >> Not so, please look again, there are two identical files, one served >> as text/html and the other as application/xhtml+xml. They both work. > > Very well, I should've been more careful. Though again, it relies on > class names to work around styling deficiencies of your proposal and > doesn't demonstrate that aria: is better than aria-. Just that it's > more complex. Um, no, the complexity is in the original (which uses aria-) and is there to work around the fact that IE6 doesn't support attribute selectors _at all_, regardless of how they are spelled. Thus my point that full interoperability respecting legacy browsers is _never_ simple. ht - -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh Half-time member of W3C Team 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIPq2ckjnJixAXWBoRAvloAJ9leFfL8Ezc6DizlBG2uPgMsHctGQCdGMxo qyz/W72b827ALOC9kiPbtNo= =xnmA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2008 13:28:01 UTC