Does not address Henri's third suggestion: <henri> I'm curious why a third way isn't mentioned: 3) Non-Namespaced Attributes for both role and states/properties with the latter prefixed with "aria-" (and no qNames in content but opaque strings): <svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <g role="checkbox" aria-checked="true">...</g> </svg> Pros: * Matches what has recently been proposed for (X)HTML5 and XUL. Good both for implementation and author skill portability. * Fewer namespaces to deal with (i.e. easier). * Copy-paste-friendly. * DOM-friendly. (qNames in content are *bad* in the DOM.) * Not a chameleon namespace per se. The attributes would be in no namespace in XHTML5, SVG and XUL. * Semantics and processing can still be imported by normative reference from wherever they get defined for HTML5. No need to spec all this in the SVG spec. Cons: * Not what the WAI PFWG draft currently says. * Unorthodox in terms of XML architecture. </henri> Thoughts? Rich Rich Schwerdtfeger Distinguished Engineer, SWG Accessibility Architect/Strategist Chair, IBM Accessibility Architecture Review Board blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/schwer Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.n et> To Sent by: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> public-xhtml2-req cc uest@w3.org XHTML WG <public-xhtml2@w3.org> Subject Re: Role and Access attribute 10/16/2007 10:08 modules and namespaces AM Please respond to tina@greytower.ne t On 16 Oct, Shane McCarron wrote: > So, I propose that we say this: Elements and Attributes declared in > the XHTML namespace exist in that namespace, and nowhere else. This makes sense to me. It's also good to have it said explicitly. -- - Tina Holmboe Developer's Archive Greytower Technologies http://www.dev-archive.net http://www.greytower.net
(image/gif attachment: graycol.gif)
(image/gif attachment: pic04502.gif)
(image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:43:39 GMT