Re: conformance checker for HTML+ARIA?

Aaron M Leventhal wrote:
> Okay, as you say, we can just call it something else.  We can call it
> HT-A11Y or ARIA-HT if we want. I guess that would be a start. 
I've been responding to points as they've come up, without really
looking at the underlying reasons for them. So - what is the point of
this exercise?

It started out with a request for the ability to validate an HTML 4.x
document with ARIA features attached (because some people have
requirements to conform to specifications). If it had been a bit later
in the day, I might have thought to point out that once you add new
elements or attributes (or redefine existing ones) then you no longer
have HTML 4, so you wouldn't be conforming to it.

At the moment, the exercise looks like it is heading towards the
creation of a new version of HTML based on HTML 4 with some
modifications backported from HTML 5 and ARIA features spliced in -
which is a relatively hefty proposition (and fairly close to what I
think the HTML Working Group should be focusing on).

Is that what people want? If so, it would probably need more then just
whipping up a DTD. It would involve a fair bit of treading into the HTML
Working Group's area of responsibility, and would probably require at
least some backing from browser vendors (since an unsupported spec is,
well, XHTML in a world with Internet Explorer and the big player).
> HTML needs to allow equal keyboard and mouse interaction otherwise it
> violates some WAI specs. Shouldn't HTML's violations of WAI specs be
> considered bugs and fixed right away so that users with disabilities
> don't have to suffer over W3C's own issues?
Authors can conform to the WAI specs by building any JavaScript around
elements which are naturally keyboard focusable. As far as I know,
everything else in an HTML document either can't be interacted with or
is accessible via the keyboard.

David Dorward

Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2008 15:06:36 UTC