Re: Proposal: <content> element

Steven Faulkner wrote:
> hi lachlan,
> It would be useful if these were  defined in the HTML5 spec no?

Yes, presumably in the section defining ARIA role mappings.  See below.

> my thinking would be that untill such times that the various elements and
> associaated algorithms are implemented in user agents, use of landmarks to
> mark up unsupported semantics be allowed.

Yes, of course they would be allowed.  I never suggested otherwise.

> Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> Steven Faulkner wrote:
>>> 2. there is no comparable element to role="banner" as <header> is
>>> allowed to be used multiple times within a document and it
>>> states in the ARIA spec that 'Within any document or application,
>>> the author *SHOULD* mark no more than one element with the banner
>>> role.'
>>
>> This could be defined to map to the first header element in the page who's
>> nearest sectioning element ancestor is the body element.

The current spec already maps <header> to the banner role, but the 
definition needs to be refined as described.

>>> 3. while currently role="contentinfo" does not have an authoring
>>> restriction like role="banner", i believe this is an oversight, 
>>> and it should have. If so there will be the same issue with
>>> mapping it to <footer>, which can also be present multiple times
>>> in a html5 document.
>>
>> If that restriction were to be applied to role="contentinfo", then it could
>> similarly be defined to map to the first (or maybe last) footer element in
>> the page who's nearest sectioning element ancestor is the body element.

The spec also maps <footer> and <address> to the contentinfo role, but I 
don't think the spec needs to change anything here, at least until ARIA 
does restrict contentinfo to just one element, if they do as Steve 
suggested.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/

Received on Friday, 28 August 2009 10:27:43 UTC