[whatwg] Joe Clark's Criticisms of the WHATWG and HTML 5
bhawkeslewis at googlemail.com
Fri Mar 23 15:22:56 PDT 2007
Nicholas Shanks wrote:
> Coming up with usage examples is trivial, justifying why they deserve
> to make the cut into a formal specification is not.
I think the need to distinguish stuff to be typed in by the user from
other text without any need for CSS support is reason enough for <kbd>.
Once we have widespread assistive technology capable of DOM access (e.g.
via IAccessible2), we'll have a better idea of whether it has other
accessibility benefits: e.g. one might well wish to have <kbd>'s content
I think the existing data set on semantic element usage is fundamentally
poisoned by broken implementations, never mind misconceived editors,
vague specs, and widespread misinformation. So it's best to be cautious
about getting rid of elements.
More information about the whatwg