Re: Next steps for the ARIA syntax discussion

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:17:17 -0300, Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>  
wrote:

> Hi Charles,
>
> On Jun 1, 2008, at 3:01 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

>> The mistake was suggesting that there should be a namespace *other than  
>> the null string* for aria attributes...

> The XML namespaces recommendation is designed to be modular. The only  
> thing other recommendations need to concern themselves with is providing  
> a namespace URI to uniquely identify the vocabulary.

Indeed. And in order to maintain compatibility with the Web as it has  
developed for the last decade and a half, in the case of attributes the  
default case of having a null namespace ("in no namespace", "blank  
namespace", call it what you will) is the only solution that works for  
HTML and XHTML serialisations. Fortunately that is the solution compatible  
with all the relevant specs, and with all the deployed technology.

> As for the text/html serialization we should be careful here as well. As  
> TAG has already expressed a desire to add distributed extensibility to  
> text/html in the future, we should again be careful here. I don't see a  
> problem with the no namespace name (or null nameespace since the  
> difference in what we call it here is trivial).  However, it is hard to  
> foresee what problems we might cause for W3C if we start moving HTML5  
> specified elements and attributes into other various namespaces (other  
> than the html namespace and the null namespace or no name namespace).

It appears we agree. The elements should be in the html namespace. The  
attributes in the null namespace.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals   Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com

Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2008 17:28:55 UTC