W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > October 2007

Re: [Role Module] Namespace for 'role' Attribute

From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:17:27 +0000
Message-ID: <4726E897.3070102@david-woolley.me.uk>
To: www-html@w3.org

Doug Schepers wrote:

> I have no problem with requiring namespaces per se, but I don't see the 
> rationale in this instance.
> 

Given that a namespace can be a single letter and a colon and that the 
main costs in using role are in getting commitment to the concept that 
it might be useful and thinking about sensible values for each 
attribute, or in choosing a high level authoring tool that does it all 
for you, my feeling is that including the namespace will act as a small 
extra deterrent to the tendency to embrace and extend, with negligible cost.

-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2007 08:17:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:12 GMT