Re: PROPOSAL: Integrate ARIA attributes into the XHTML namespace

aloha, raman!

just to let you know, there is a lot of loud plus one-ing to shane's
proposal during each PF call whenever the issue has been raised -- i 
think, however, that the ultimate answer is moving through "process", 
as discussed at the last 2 PF calls:

PF "regular" call:


which is quoted below, and the 12 may 2008 ARIA subcommittee call:

to quote from the 14 may 2008 PF call:


Al: we have no further comments on their last call then
... MC can work on editing the vocab doc between the role module and our 

<oedipus> same NS as the other XHTML modules, right?

MC: values of role attribute in xhtml vocab - hence do not need a NS 

<oedipus> that is the XHTML2's desire, seems to be critical mass here

Al: yes - we are putting the same NS as other XHTML modules
... one of the points that would change Henry's opinion. our solution 
would look much better. What we have now is not as bad as what we had in 
public draft

MC: though had an action on this

SF: issue 129?

MC: not made yet
... 129 doesn't sound right

<oedipus> next steps for ARIA syntax discussion:

Al: let us know the status of the issue - if need an official decision 
let us know

<scribe> ACTION: agilman to notify XHTML2 WG of no comments on role 
module spec [recorded in

glad to have your plus one delivered to the group, though -- we read
you loud and clear and most of us are nodding in violent agreement,


---------- Original Message -----------
From: "T.V Raman" <>
Sent: Fri, 16 May 2008 09:22:47 -0700
Subject: PROPOSAL: Integrate ARIA attributes into the XHTML namespace

> a loud 1+ on this.
> Shane McCarron writes:
>  > 
>  > (resent to wai-xtech so it is public)
>  > 
>  > XHTML 2 and PFWG members,
>  > 
>  > I have been following with interest the debate in the TAG 
> regarding the > mechanism the PFWG has proposed for addressing 
> issues with namespaces > and support for the ARIA work in non-
> XML user agents.  I appreciate all > of the effort that has gone 
> into the debate, and of course understand > that there are 
> strong opinions on all sides.  In the middle of that > debate, I 
> read an impassioned plea from Rich for some sensibility, which > 
> I translated as "Can't we all just get along?" >  > In the 
> spirit of that, I tried to think outside the box a little bit -
>  > just as we did at the f2f meeting in Venice when considering 
> how to deal > with ARIA-defined values for @role.  Consequently, 
> I propose the following: >  >    1. Eliminate the private "aria" 
> namespace. >    2. Incorporate the 'aria-*' attributes into the 
> XHTML namespace. >    3. Define the attributes in an XHTML M12N-
> conforming module so that >       they can be easily 
> incorporated into XHTML Family markup languages. >    4. Make 
> that module "chameleon", just like XHTML Role, so that other >   
>     languages can easily incorporate the attributes into their 
> own >       namespace if they choose. >    5. Ensure that such a 
> definition does not preclude the use in non-XML >       grammars 
> such as HTML 5. >  > I propose this for (at least) the following 
> reasons: >  >    1. It costs *us* nothing (there is work for the 
> PFWG, but it costs >       the XHTML 2 Working Group nothing ;-
> ). >    2. It promotes the ARIA techniques in the same way that 
>  >       Ruby or Xforms into the XHTML namespace promoted them - 
> helping >       ensure they are not viewed as second class technologies.
>  >    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. >    4. There will only be one 
> "name" for all the ARIA attributes. >  > I fully understand that 
> this is not a perfect solution.  I also expect > that there are 
> people who will continue to object to using a dash for > scoping 
> instead of the well-defined QName mechanism.  Those objections > 
> are legitimate and there are long term ramifications to not 
> using > namespaces when they are appropriate.  However, I think 
> in this case > relegating these critical accessibility enablers 
> to a non-XHTML > namespace serves no one, and therefore the use 
> of an alternate namespace > for this work is inappropriate.  
> Unfortunately, attempting to > incorporate the attributes into 
> the XHTML namespace and XHTML markup > languages without the 
> aria- prefix would be impossible.  There would be > too many 
> collisions with existing attribute names. >  > Ignoring the 
> technical side of the debate, we have a responsibility to > all 
> members of the web community - and that community includes A LOT 
> of > people who are being rapidly disenfranchised because 
> accessibility is > just too damn hard in the Web 2.0 world.  We 
> need to solve this.  And > solve it now.  I say we embrace the 
> ARIA solution in the XHTML space and > move on! >  > --  > Shane 
> P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 
> > Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
>  > ApTest Minnesota                            Inet:
>  > 
>  > 
>  >
> -- 
> Best Regards,
> --raman
> Title:  Research Scientist      
> Email:
> WWW:
> Google: tv+raman 
> GTalk:,
> PGP:
------- End of Original Message -------

Received on Friday, 16 May 2008 17:42:06 UTC