Re: accesskey

Michael Hamm wrote:
> 
> Looking at XHTML1[1] and HTML4.01[2], I note again[3] that <link> has no
> accesskey attribute, and I ask again: why not? Oughtn't it?
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#h-12.3
> [3] In case you're wondering when the first time was (that I write
>     "again"), see
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/1999Aug/0012.html .

Michael,

Part of XHTML 1.0's goal was to mimic HTML 4.0's attributes. And apart
from bugs, I'm not sure if the WG would consider adding 'accesskey'
to <link> as a bug or a new feature. If the latter, I would think that
this would be something that would be inappropriate to HTML 4.01 and
XHTML 1.0. Because <link> has a number of uses, with stylesheet 
attachment probably its main one, it might be a bit strange to consider
the implications of 'accesskey' in some contexts.

Now for XHTML 1.1 this is a different matter, and I will endeavour to
add this as a discussion item to our agenda. Thanks for bringing this
up, as it seems like it might be a sensible addition. The only real
mark against it is that (to my knowledge) neither of the predominant
browsers implements <link>'s use as user-activated links, so this 
might be considered a problem with interoperability, especially as 
we move to XLink in XHTML 2.0 (where we hope to use a more generic 
WAI solution).

But all this is food for thought, and I hope the WG will give it due
consideration.

Murray

...........................................................................
Murray Altheim                                   <mailto:altheim@sonic.net>
Member of Technical Staff, Tools Development & Support
Sun Microsystems, Inc. MS MPK17-102
1601 Willow Rd., Menlo Park, California 94025  <mailto:altheim@eng.sun.com>

   the honey bee is sad and cross and wicked as a weasel
   and when she perches on you boss she leaves a little measle -- archy

Received on Monday, 27 December 1999 01:42:51 UTC