W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xhtml2@w3.org > March 2008

Re: XHTML-Role last call working draft ready for review

From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:57:16 +0000
To: "XHTML WG" <public-xhtml2@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20080319135558.M82642@hicom.net>

aloha!

while i have a general plus one to shane's last draft of the XHTML Role 
document -- with markB's editorial amendments -- specific comments 
follow:

GJR 1. plus 1 to mark's proposed change to Section 2.1

<q 
cite="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-
xhtml2/2008Mar/0044.html">
  A document that conforms to the XHTML Role Attribute Module is a 
  document that requires only the facilities described as mandatory 
  in this specification. Note that the host language may impose 
  further mandatory requirements on the document, for it to be 
  conformant with the host language.
</q>

GJR 2. Section 2.1 bullet 2 and Section 2.2

i thought that Role was chameleon?  did i miss something?

GJR 3: plus one to mark's comment:

<q 
cite="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-
xhtml2/2008Mar/0044.html">
However, that doesn't make it particularly tempting for people to
include @role in their new language. I think it would be better to do
what I did for @rel in RDFa, and say that if the value appears in the
following list, it MUST be interpreted as being in the XHTML vocab
namespace. After that, values are then deemed as being in the default
namespace as defined in CURIEs, and that _could_ be set to something
other than the vocab namespace, depending on the host.
</q>

GJR: in regards Section 3

i would prefer "logical content blocks" to "regions of a document"
(yes, i can hear the shudders from here)

GJR: i agree that banner is a "loaded" term, but i also believe that
the intention of the role is to include more than just the header, 
which should be marked up at the elemental level as some sort of 
header (header or Hx)  i personally think that a "header" and a 
"banner" are distinct roles -- a header contains info contained in 
a header element, along with any other content contained in non-header
elements that add to or refine the string of text explicitly marked as
a header

"banner", therefore, should be a container for a logo, a motto, and 
advertisements (that is a "logical block" which one may wish to access
or skip, depending upon what the user is attempting to accomplish at 
the site...  i realize that this definition is also a death sentence, 
as a "header" role will most likely be abused to include advertising,
but specifications shouldn't be predicated upon the "worst authoring
case scenario", but upon semantic logic -- authors will always abuse 
and/or misuse markup, no matter how well defined, explained and 
illustrated...

as for "complementary" i agree that "additional" or "supplemental" are 
superior terms -- i would just ask that the WG ask non-native english 
speakers for their opinion of the terminology -- when such a query was
made by PF, the results were "complementary" or "supplemental" -- the
key is to make the role name as self-evident as possible as a logical 
construct

like mark, i think there is definitely a place for a "footer" role, 
distinct from contentinfo, which may appear in small bits scattered 
throughout a document instance...

and, finally, i am intrigued by markB's suggestion that:

<q 
cite="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-
xhtml2/2008Mar/0044.html">
we should define terms like xh:region in our own namespace, and then 
use them in place of wairole:region. In particular, we should define 
xh:document as an XHTML document.
</q>

just my (ever more rapidly) devaluing 2 cents, american,
gregory.
-------------------------------------------------------------
ADVICE, n.  The smallest common coin.
                    -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
-------------------------------------------------------------
             Gregory J. Rosmaita, oedipus@hicom.net
  Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2008 13:57:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 February 2010 18:12:48 GMT