- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 01:26:56 +0100
- To: "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>, marcsil@windows.microsoft.com
- Cc: annevk@opera.com, dave.pawson@gmail.com, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org, Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com, cullens@microsoft.com, jongund@uiuc.edu, aleventh@us.ibm.com, chaals@opera.com, poehlman1@comcast.net, www-archive@w3.org, schwer@us.ibm.com
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 00:24:37 +0100, T.V Raman <raman@google.com> wrote:
>
> As a Web developer, I would vote in favor of retaining the
> element.ariaFoo properties, and encourage other browser vendors
> to support
> that in upcoming versions. We've dropped namespace support in the
> name of developer and author convenience;
AIUI, namespace support was dropped because ARIA needed to work in HTML
and it was desired for it to be consistent syntax-wise and DOM-wise
between HTML and XML and between shipped browsers; the convenience benefit
was more of a side-effect.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Mar/0028.html
> this falls in the same
> bucket.
Not really, IMHO.
> Writing
> e.ariaChecked = true
> is far easier than the more convoluted
> e.setAttribute(...)
It's more convenient, indeed, but:
the attributes won't get updated properly in ARIA-unaware browsers
(like IE7 or Safari 3) so ARIA-aware ATs can't just read the DOM and
get the right ARIA information. AIUI, it is desirable that ARIA-aware
ATs are able to work with ARIA-unaware browsers, and hence only
setAttribute() should be used.
-- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-wai-pf/2008JanMar/0348.html
--
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Friday, 21 March 2008 00:28:40 UTC