On Apr 18, 2008, at 11:17, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > Henri Sivonen writes: > >>> Exactly -- having aria-role and aria:role as aliases is bad design. >> Having only aria-foo and not having aria:foo solves the problem. > > That proposal is not, as far as I know, on the table -- I would > certainly argue against it as fundamentally breaking XML design > principles. Actually, it is what is being implemented. > As you can see from the minutes of yesterday's call, I'm struggling to > understand what appears to be a strong antipathy towards namespaces > for any purpose in some quarters: > > "HT: This constinuency that can't abide namespaces... why is it that > they can't? > > "DC: I don't know; I don't share their opinion, but I know they're > out there." > > Can you explain this? The aria-foo vs. aria:foo issue is not about antipathy towards namespaces. It is a pragmatic choice in the face of legacy constraints (both spec and software). Let's not allow namespace issues for other purposes get in the way of ARIA. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/Received on Saturday, 19 April 2008 20:05:29 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:56:14 GMT