Re: Strategic decision time

On Thu, 29 May 2008 14:13:43 +0200, Henry S. Thompson <>  
> The reality as I see it is that ARIA integration into the text/html
> world is going to be messy and bug-prone in the short term no matter
> what we do.  If you contrast the simplicity of either your or my
> simple checkbox example [1] [2], which only works in some browsers,
> with the complexity of the genuinely interoperable versions [3] [4],
> the familiar pattern of non-obvious cleverness which is the reality of
> fully interoperable Web 2.0 Javascript is evident.

This comparison doesn't make sense. You're mixing colon with hyphen  
examples and comparing simple single widgets pages with complete web pages  
that also include several widgets.

> Of course it's a judgement call, but giving DOM consistency a veto
> seems to me an over-reaction, when doing so isn't even sufficient to
> give us interoperable solutions.

I'd be interested in some specific data that backs up this claim.

> So, I end up still weighing the long-term value for the whole W3C
> community of a clean extensibility story, with the specific benefit
> for ARIA of _not_ requiring detailed bilateral negotiation with every
> WG that owns an XML language into which ARIA should integrate, more
> highly that the marginal cost of aria: vs. aria- to text/html script
> writers.

ARIA needs bilateral negotiation anyway because of semantic clashes.  
Namespaces do not solve semantic clashes. Case in point is XLink, which  
SVG specifically references and defines how it works in the SVG language.  
(I tried numerous times together with Boris Zbarsky to get the XML Core WG  
to do something saner with XLink, but it didn't meet their requirements  
document or something silly like that. Now XLink attributes are special  
cased on a few SVG elements.)

> [1]
> [2]
> [3]
> [4]

Kind regards,

Anne van Kesteren

Received on Thursday, 29 May 2008 12:52:40 UTC