[whatwg] article/section/details naming/definition problems
jeremy at adactio.com
Thu Sep 17 02:59:25 PDT 2009
> do you think role=article is a legitimate and useful feature in ARIA?
Pretty useful but not *as* useful as some of the biggies e.g. search,
navigation, contentinfo, and all the roles to do with interaction.
> Do you accept the notion that ARIA should become syntactically
> obsolete over time so that its semantics are natively available in
> HTML proper? (See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg-comments/2009AprJun/0031.html
Now that's a big question. :-)
If that is the one of the goals of HTML5 then aren't there going to be
lots of existing role values that won't be covered by HTML?
role="article" would probably be the least of them.
But, even accepting that ARIA roles should be obsoleted by HTML,
that's not the same as being obsoleted by HTML *elements*. It's still
possible to specify that a <section> is of a particular type (e.g.
article) without necessarily creating a new element for it. Otherwise
we'd have to create <password>, <checkbox>, <radio> elements, etc.
instead of using <input type="">.
So an answer of "yes" to your question doesn't mean that every current
ARIA role needs a corresponding distinct element in HTML.
a d a c t i o
More information about the whatwg