Re: role cardinality [was: Re: ARIA Proposal ]

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:37:53 +0200, Richard Schwerdtfeger  
<schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> One thing that came up on today's pf call was the point about
> aria-properties being in the XHTML namspace. This is new. So, the  
> question I have is which of the two working groups owns the xhtml  
> namespace - xhtml2 or html? This was not clear after the W3C split the  
> effort.
>
> The proposal states: UAs must process an aria-propertyname attribute in  
> no namespace that is part of an element in the  
> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml
> namespace as described below, unless that element has a propertyname
> attribute in the http://www.w3.org/2005/07/aaa namespace specified.

The HTML WG works on both HTML and an XML serialization of HTML. The XML  
serialization of HTML is a "backwards compatible" version of XHTML 1.0 and  
the HTML serialization is a "backwards compatible" version of HTML 4.01  
simply said. HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 share the same underlying language.  
As do the HTML and XML serializations of HTML 5.

The WG tries to minimize the amount of differences between the HTML and  
XML serialization of HTML 5. For instance, an HTML DOM will have elements  
put in a namespace once HTML 5 is implemented. This also simplifies things  
for authors when transitioning between the two and hopefully makes  
implementing and testing a bit saner as well.

Anyway, the result of the above is that if a new feature for the HTML  
serialization is introduced it is also introduced for the XML  
serialization and hence aria-*="" attributes work for both HTML and HTML  
serialized as XML (XHTML). (The aria-*="" attributes are _not_ in a  
namespace by the way and the proposal did _not_ change regarding this.  
This has been consistent from the start.)

Hope this helps.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>

Received on Monday, 1 October 2007 18:55:52 UTC