- From: T.V Raman <raman@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:01:29 -0700
- To: jonas@sicking.cc
- Cc: faulkner.steve@gmail.com, mjs@apple.com, public-html@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org
Sad but true, I'd answer yes to your question. ARIA was designed to patch up bad HTML usage --- that is where it coems from, and that is its role (no pun intended) Jonas Sicking writes: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 1:45 AM, Steven Faulkner > <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: > > hi maciej, > >>I think <button> is pretty consistently fully stylable cross-browser > >> (unlike, say, <input type="button">). > > This is really incidental to the issue being discussed, most, if not all > > html elements can be scripted and styled in a way that overides their native > > semantic > > If this is allowed, then it follows that the addition of ARIA roles > > should$(ÿ > > incidental to the developers$(ÿ > > Couldn't the same argument be made for any other element as well? Does > this mean that we should allow ARIA roles on all elements? > > I guess there still are a few exceptions, like <script>, <style>, and <form>. > > But for example <h1> can be overridden to look and act like a button > or a link, does this mean that we should allow arbitrary ARIA on <h1>? > > / Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 23:02:09 UTC