Tantek Çelik wrote:
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Forgive my newness to this, but: could you provide some examples of
where the generalised title-design-pattern would be problematic?
Here is a simple (theoretical) example (hReview fragment)
span class=rating title=Three means fair3/span
There
Tantek Çelik wrote:
And though it may seem odd that I'm simultaneously arguing against the
proposed title-design-pattern and attempting to improve it, even if
I am
against a particular proposal, I would much rather attempt to
improve it in
good faith, for the benefit of having the best
Tantek Çelik wrote:
Generalizing this overloading of the title attribute to *any*
element seems
like a really bad idea from the perspective of minimal change.
Any element, but only on specific Microformat classes, each of which
has expected RegEx-matchable values. DTSTART, DTEND,
Tantek said:
1. Not backwards compatible with existing microformatted non-abbr
elements.
and
Here is a simple (theoretical) example (hReview fragment)
span class=rating title=Three means fair3/span
Yes, but the proposal is to limit the title-design-pattern to
*specific* classes
As
On 4/29/07, Jeremy Keith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we were to find an existing HTML element that was semantically
suited to encoding datetime and/or geo information *and* didn't cause
problems with assistive technology, then I would jump all over it and
agree wholeheartedly that the
On 4/29/07 4:43 AM, Jeremy Keith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So the problem becomes one of damage control.
Certainly *any* proposal can be improved by limiting/reducing the potential
damage it does.
Tantek's proposed damage limitation is to open up the abbr-design-
pattern to just one other
Brian Suda wrote:
We are naively ASSUMING that people with assistive technologies NEED
our help.
I would suggest that common sense, based on the sample of screen reader
output provided in the WaSP article, does indeed lead us to assume, but
it's an informed assumption.
I would prefer,
On 4/29/07 8:10 AM, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian Suda wrote:
We are naively ASSUMING that people with assistive technologies NEED
our help.
I would suggest that common sense, based on the sample of screen reader
output provided in the WaSP article, does indeed lead us
Brian Suda wrote:
the whole discussion begs the question about what people with
assistive technologies ACTUALLY think? A while ago there was a whole
report about who screen readers fail with AJAX apps, then someone
actually ASKED some blind folks if they could navigate the site...
they managed
James said, in replying to Brian:
A while ago there was a whole
report about who screen readers fail with AJAX apps, then someone
actually ASKED some blind folks if they could navigate the site...
they managed to do so just fine.
To what report and response are you referring? Do you have a
Jeremy,
While certainly I am swayed by many of your well reasoned arguments, I must
point out one particular flaw:
1. Not backwards compatible with existing microformatted non-abbr elements.
On 4/28/07 2:12 PM, Jeremy Keith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd also like to point out one of the
Jeremy,
While certainly I am swayed by many of your well reasoned arguments, I must
point out one particular flaw:
1. Not backwards compatible with existing microformatted non-abbr elements.
On 4/28/07 2:12 PM, Jeremy Keith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd also like to point out one of the
On 4/28/07 7:22 PM, Tantek Çelik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't have a specific proposal here, other than pick one
element rather than all, and then I think it gives the other-element-title
pattern a better chance.
Tantek
Apologies for the incomplete duplicate that got sent prematurely.
Tantek Çelik wrote:
1. Not backwards compatible with existing microformatted non-abbr elements.
The problem is that there are already *non* abbr elements out there that
contain microformatted information in the element text *and* a title
attribute that is informational (e.g. for a tool tip).
On 4/28/07 8:04 PM, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tantek Çelik wrote:
1. Not backwards compatible with existing microformatted non-abbr elements.
The problem is that there are already *non* abbr elements out there that
contain microformatted information in the element text
15 matches
Mail list logo
