- From: Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 17:21:55 +0300
- To: www-tag@w3.org, public-html@w3.org, public-xhtml2@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org
my 2 cents Losing the namespaces architectures seems to brake a lot of the original aim of what we set out to do. Further it is the dash approach that is new - first available drafts and implementations were using the colon approach. And even if this was not the case, the agreement with early implementations was that we would support early working drafts unless there was a good reason not to - in other words, there would be an effort to reduce change, but some change is inevitable with a working draft. Best Lisa -----Original Message----- From: wai-xtech-request@w3.org [mailto:wai-xtech-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 7:22 PM To: public-html@w3.org; public-xhtml2@w3.org; wai-xtech@w3.org Cc: www-tag@w3.org Subject: Next steps for the ARIA syntax discussion Dear HTML, XHTML2, WAI-PFWG and implementers, We would like to encourage discussion of this email and the analysis at [1] to take place on www-tag@w3.org [be aware that 'reply-to:' on this message has been set accordingly]. At a relatively late stage in the development of the ARIA specification, the TAG was invited to consider the question of the markup syntax for ARIA states and properties, in particular the question of whether the attributes encoding them in HTML- and XML-based languages should be written 'aria-...' (hereafter "the dash approach") or 'aria:...' (hereafter "the colon approach"). Based in part on a re-examination of the facts on the ground as regards existing browser implementations, and in part on consideration of the more general issue of language extensibility in the long term, (both reported in _Syntax for ARIA: Cost-benefit analysis" [1]), the TAG has arrived at the working hypothesis that the colon approach is both technically feasible and strategically preferable. The TAG is well aware that the WAI PF WG has built up a very productive working relationship with implementers of all the major browsers, and that the current state of the ARIA specification is in no small part the result of the valuable information gained from the implementation work which has already been done. We recognize the value of that relationship, and nor do we wish to delay the progress of ARIA to Recommendation unduly. But we also think our work brings important new information to bear on the question, and that the TAG's remit to keep wider web-architectural issues in view adds weight to our concerns. Accordingly, we would like to invite you to consider three questions: 1) Are the facts about the current state of play with respect to how current implementations work as set out in [1] reasonably accurate; 2) Is the cost-benefit analysis in [1] missing any substantive considerations, particularly as regards the cost of changing implementations given testing timeframes, product release cycles, etc.; 3) The TAG's working hypothesis is that "aria:" is both technically feasible and strategically preferable, on the grounds that the long- term benefits of a consistent approach to extensibility across all the Web languages outweighs the short-term costs of making the change at this time: (to the WAI PF WG): Would you consider specifying 'aria:' in the next WD of ARIA; (to the implementers): Could you see your way to changing your implementation/spec. to comply? We would be happy to work with you to move forward quickly to a final resolution on this question. Stuart Williams (co-chair) for and on behalf of the W3C Technical Architecture Group (TAG) [1] http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/05/syntax_for_aria_costbenefit_an.html -- Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2008 14:22:48 UTC