jQuery UI http://jqueryui.com/ has some great-looking widgets faked in JavaScript; no incentive for devs to move from that.

Unfortunately, I see nothing in CSS that allows me to style calendar widgets for input type=”date” so I could (for example) style weekends in red and weekdays in black, or change the way the pointer looks on input type=”range”.

Indeed. That’s why I think the money should be going on the long-term CSS solutions to these things, instead of band-aid-to-HTML solutions like WAI-ARIA.

“Do it once, do it right.”

In example, you could check http://www.culinaryculture.com/ . Don’t check the source, but the glyphs. IMO, they’re pretty much well integrated with every page design. They’re neutral with the design and very meaningful to the user.

I can’t see what the main point of your comment was; if it was to tell me that you disagree with my markup choices, then: noted.

I agree with you that “Native controls are natively accessible. Styling them with CSS is consistent with styling anything else in HTML.”

Unfortunately, I see nothing in CSS that allows me to style calendar widgets for input type="date" so I could (for example) style weekends in red and weekdays in black, or change the way the pointer looks on input type="range".

Until these can be styled by designers, they will use the jQuery-like UI libraries that allow such styling as they “fake” the form controls. This means potentially less accessibility, more code and slower uptake of the native form controls.

If it were up to me, I would like the browser manufacturers to get together to agree a temporary measure for solving designers’ natural wish to style. Perhaps something like vendor specific CSS but instead of a vendor prefix, something like -html5-slider-pointer that could be given a background image, colours etc.

I tried some searches using that website’s search box but couldn’t find a page with the content you have quoted. For example, there were no results from a search for “BSkyB”.

As for whether an ordered list should use <ol>, well, I thought semantic markup was a good thing?

If you are quoting from speech rather than from a written source, conveying the structure of that speech using markup is appropriate. Especially since text loses the manner and timing with which it was said. (The absence of speechmarks mean I’m not sure speech was the source, either.)

Adjusting poor form when quoting material is also a valid thing to do, so long as the edits are marked. This includes correcting typos, removing invalid or presentational markup, changing the visual style and replacing URLs-as-link-text with proper link text. All come under the editorial prerogative of a site owner who chooses to quote from another source, AFAICT.

Such edits do not change the meaning. On the contrary: they make the meaning more apparent.

Did you have any thoughts about the main body of my comment?