- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:37:57 +0100
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Lars Gunther <gunther@keryx.se>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Tab Atkins Jr. On 09-11-10 19.46: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:34 PM, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> wrote: >> We all can pretty much agree that making an <h1> a 'button' doesn't really >> make a whole lot of semantic sense, [...] > Since I brought up that example, that sort of markup actually isn't a > bad idea in my opinion. Now it would probably be better done with > <details>, but when that didn't exist a <div><h1/><p/></div> was a > good approximation of the semantics. In some cases it still might be > better semantically, for example if you were implementing a tab-based > interface in js. > > *Is* it most helpful to convey to ATs that the heading is a button in > that example? Are there better ways to do it? You really > can't/shouldn't use an actual <button> in the example, because it's > *not* semantically a button, it's a heading. It's only when you bring > behavior into the mix that acquires a slightly different character. I would think that the reason that you shouldn't use a button is because it isn't a button because it isn't inside a form. Well, it is still a button - even outside a <form>, but a button outside the form element - what use is that? Why doesn't HTML 5 say that it is invalid, like HTML 4 does? -- leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 10 November 2009 19:38:31 UTC