W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2007

Re: ARIA in HTML -- a new FAQ, and a proposal

From: Aaron M Leventhal <aleventh@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:36:13 -0400
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF3E8F22E7.08350BC3-ON8525735D.00550E44-8525735D.0055B02C@us.ibm.com>
> ARIA properties are also supported as {property} in the 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/07/aaa namespace on _all_ elements. These take 
> precedence over the aria-{property} attributes on elements in the 
> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml namespace.
That's how I have it implemented in the current patch. 

> As for the list of roles, I would prefer if we simply remove the 
> complicated qname idea and make them opaque strings just like the rel, 
> class, etc. attributes already work. This seems more consistent and 
easier 
> to author. Especially considering that the DOM and CSS don't have 
support 
> for namespaced attribute values so that authoring once, deploying 
> everywhere (for equivalent documents) does not work automatically. This 
> seems problematic.
Right now the namespaced role values are still supported when role is used 
somewhere that namespaces are supported. All the content developers using 
role currently have qnames for their role values. Everyone would have to 
go change that. There is also still a resistance in PFWG to changing this. 
Since it is controverial, perhaps it's a discussion for the face to face 
in Boston this November.

The good news is that if we change it, we can do it after Firefox 3 ships, 
since both ways are supported. We can deprecate the qnames at that point.

Other parts of the proposal need to be changed in the code in order to 
work at all and it isn't a matter of just deprecating something. I'm 
currently more focused on getting those right.

- Aaron
Received on Friday, 21 September 2007 15:36:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:07 GMT