- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 14:51:53 -0700
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- Cc: public-html@w3.org, public-xhtml2@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org
On Wednesday 2008-05-14 16:22 +0000, Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) wrote: > 2) Is the cost-benefit analysis in [1] missing any substantive > considerations, particularly as regards the cost of changing I would note the following additional considerations: (1) Adding any namespace-like syntax to text/html before discussions on potential extensibility mechanisms are settled may significantly constrain the potential solutions of those discussions. (2) Adding additional ways in which text/html needs to be transformed (such as having to change an aria-role attribute to an aria:role attribute, or similar changes to associated style sheets or scripts) in order to become application/xhtml+xml increases the costs of migrating to application/xhtml+xml and makes application/xhtml+xml less likely to be used by Web pages. (3) Producing W3C recommendations that recommend bad practices in order to gain compatibility (things like escaped colons in CSS selectors) will encourage the use of those bad practices in other areas as well. One other point is that I'd been told by some people that ARIA itself was only a short-term stopgap until additional semantic elements / attributes were available in HTML. If that's the case (is it?), how concerned should we be about long-term issues? -David > [1] http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/05/syntax_for_aria_costbenefit_an.html -- L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2008 21:52:44 UTC