- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 13:50:14 +0300
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Cc: HTML WG <w3c-html-wg@w3.org>, wai-xtech <wai-xtech@w3.org>
On Apr 25, 2008, at 21:45 , Shane McCarron wrote: > 1. Eliminate the private "aria" namespace. > 2. Incorporate the 'aria-*' attributes into the XHTML namespace. Using aria-foo attributes in no namespace on elements in the http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml namespace is what's being implemented. > 3. Define the attributes in an XHTML M12N-conforming module so that > they can be easily incorporated into XHTML Family markup > languages. So far the flagship application of Modularization--XHTML-MP--subsets XHTML in a way that isn't prescribed by Modularization. This leads me to believe that Modularization isn't working. > 1. It costs *us* nothing (there is work for the PFWG, but it costs > the XHTML 2 Working Group nothing ;-). It's telling that you only mention cost to WGs instead of mentioning cost to *implementors*. > 2. It promotes the ARIA techniques in the same way that incorporating > Ruby or Xforms into the XHTML namespace promoted them - helping > ensure they are not viewed as second class technologies. The aria-foo syntax has already a better uptake than either Ruby or XForms. > 3. It basically eliminates the problems with CSS styling and access > to the attributes via JavaScript, including the ability to develop > style sheets and scripts that work portably regardless of whether > the enclosing document is treated as HTML or XHTML - for the vast > majority of use cases, anyway. The aria-foo syntax eliminates said problems and is what's being implemented. > 4. There will only be one "name" for all the ARIA attributes. Indeed, we only need aria-foo, not aria:foo as well. This is already what's happening in practice. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Saturday, 26 April 2008 10:50:53 UTC