- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:23:57 -0500
- To: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
- CC: Aaron M Leventhal <aleventh@us.ibm.com>, Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, hsivonen@iki.fi, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, wai-xtech-request@w3.org, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, www-validator@w3.org
I think the simplest thing to do here is just create the DTDs. I can do it - take a couple of hours. As to what they should be called... HTML4+ARIA and XHTML+ARIA seem sensible to me. It follows the convention that we use in the XHTML 2 working group. I will post links to the DTDs when they are complete. Might not be until tomorrow. David Dorward wrote: > 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. > > -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2008 15:25:22 UTC