- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 06:36:40 -0700
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- 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>
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote: > Lars Gunther On 09-10-22 01.53: > >> 2009-10-21 15:11, Shelley Powers skrev: >>> >>> If you go out and search on Google for "CSS link button" you get many >>> tutorials, examples, etc, that focus on styling links as buttons. If >>> you search on "JavaScript link button" you get many libraries that >>> support this functionality. > > > [...] > >> So while I do not agree - this time - with Steve and Shelley, I must >> emphasize that the wording on the error messages in the validator must >> strongly suggest using the button element, and really not be worded in any >> way that discourages the use of ARIA. > > I think the issue must be split it two: > > (1) If there is conflict between the role attribute the element, then should > the validator assume that a misapplied role or a misapplied element? > > (2) What kind of roles are the <a> element meant for? There's also the question, "Should any role be allowed on any element". For example I asked earlier in this thread if it should be conforming to have an <h1> element with ARIA attributes indicating that it is a botton. It seemed like at least some people thought that that should be conforming. / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 22 October 2009 13:37:34 UTC