[Bug 21412] Extensibility of @role should be better defined

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21412

Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |hsivonen@iki.fi

--- Comment #1 from Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> The use case is adding values that match new needs, such as those found in
> epub.

Do you mean that the stuff that lives in epub:type should live in role? Or
something else?

Is there any Reading System implementor interest in epub:type beyond the
footnote stuff? Frankly, to me, it looks like someone interested in semantics
for the sake of semantics got carried away without being backed by true
implementor interest. (I'm aware of BlueGriffon. I'm asking specifically about
Reading System implementor interest.)

> The ARIA role attribute document has a variety of indications about CURIEs
> and XHTML, but these are hardly applicable.

The role attribute doc is old XHTML WG stuff. Doesn't apply to HTML5.

> A clearer description of the extensibility would help.

How about: "If you need new roles and you have secured implementor interest
from two independent browser engine implementors, mint some and let the PFWG
know so that collisions can be avoided."? I don't see a need for a mechanism
beyond collision avoidance.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Thursday, 28 March 2013 13:21:44 UTC