- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:56:23 +0300
- To: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org, public-html@w3.org, public-xhtml2@w3.org, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org, w3c-html-cg@w3.org
On Oct 24, 2007, at 10:02, David Woolley wrote: > Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote: > >> 2. Colon is not an option for text/html >> We cannot use the colon instead of a hyphen, because a colon in >> attribute names causes problems in IE. For example, you cannot use >> CSS > > Interestingly, though, IE is the strongest precedent for using : as as > namespace separator in documents served as text/html. It is used > for VML and for the Microsoft Office supplementary markup. The colon is used in VML, which is IE-only, and MS Office *supplementary* markup that is for MS Office-to-MS Office round- tripping and browsers are even expected not to do stuff with that supplementary markup. The colon is not used for existing cross- browser features in text/html. Scripting discrepancies between browsers are bad for script authors. The aria-* avoids those problems, since it uses interoperably implemented parsing and DOM features. There is *no* way of introducing a colon-based syntax to text/html without creating a scripting discrepancy *somewhere*. This is simply because shipped IE and shipped Gecko/WebKit/Opera do different things with the colon, so even if new browsers changed their behavior, there'd have to be a discrepancy with either shipped IE or shipped Gecko/WebKit/Opera (or both). Using the IE precedent would mean that the exact behavior of what IE does with the colon would have to be discovered, specified and implemented in the Firefox 3 and Opera 9.5 timeframe. This is seriously not feasible. Moreover, it would cause a DOM discrepancy with past Firefox and Opera releases. Even if that was overlooked, it would create a scripting/DOM discrepancy between the text/html serialization of HTML5 and the application/xhtml+xml serialization of HTML5, because the way IE represents colon-based namespaces in the HTML DOM is different from how Namespaces in XML are represented in DOM Level 2 Core. OTOH, if you required IE to change their stuff to match DOM Level 2 Core, you wouldn't be using IE precedent but you'd be doing something new and *incompatible*. The reasonable practical course of action that allows for consistent scripting across browsers and serializations is to steer away from the colon. >> *6. Currently proposed solutions for ARIA states and properties >> (not role)* >> A. Use hyphenated property everywhere . >> Pros: consistent >> Cons: The issue that has been raised on this is that SVG already >> has properties with hyphens in it. However, proponents of hyphen >> state that SVG has no properties starting with "aria-" so it is >> not a real problem, > > This means that either ARIA attributes have to be part of the core > of XHTML, SVG, etc., No, the specs that define XHTML and SVG could make a normative reference to an ARIA spec and refrain from defining aria-* attributes on their own. There is no technical reason why spec organization and division into namespaces (in the sense of Namespaces in XML) would have to be the same. > or that you have the ugly situation of having two different > syntaxes for namespacing co-exist, Note that aria-* is "namespacing" only in the spec organization sense. It isn't namespacing in the parsing/DOM sense. > one of which is only available to official standards, because it > cannot guarantee global uniqueness otherwise. Global uniqueness is a red herring. Collisions with pre-existing HTML and SVG attributes are the real technical concern for *Web* accessibility. aria-* does not collide with pre-existing HTML or SVG attributes, so collisions are not a problem with the aria-* scheme. Collisions with attributes from *theoretical* *non-Web* languages aren't a real technical concern for enabling *Web* accessibility-- just like making the id attribute in no namespace have ID semantics would have worked just fine for Web languages and xml:id addresses a theoretical non-Web problem. When developing specs for the Web, we shouldn't let theoretical non- Web concerns add complexity. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2007 11:57:06 UTC