- From: Laurie Voss <www-html@seldo.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:43:59 +0100
- To: "Peter Krantz" <peter.krantz@gmail.com>
- CC: www-html@w3.org
On 30 August 2006, Peter Krantz wrote: PK> Am I interpreting it correctly if I use it like this: PK> <section role="legal:paragraph">... PK> ...provided that the "legal" namespace has already been established in PK> the document. PK> This sounds interesting and feels coherent with the naming of the role PK> attribute. But, if this is the case, then the wording in section PK> 26.1[1] in current version of the specification should change. It seems like the most sensible way to do what you intend is not to use XHTML on its own, but use your own XML schema to supplement it. You could for instance declare a legal namespace with a set of attributes which you can then apply to your sections. For example: <?xml version="1.0"> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd"> <xhtml xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:legal="http://www.legal.domain.here/standard/2006" > <body> <h>Legal document</h> <section legal:role="introduction"> .. blah blah blah <span legal:name="plaintiff">John Doe</span> blah blah .. </section> .. <section legal:role="conclusion"> .. </div> </body> </xhtml> I apologize for this being a bit of a how-to answer, but I think it's important that the useful semantics of the word "role" itself for Peter's application not be confused with XHTML's own @role. It really seems like if XHTML's @role is to have any value as a tool for accessibility its set of possible values must be finite, or more realistically, constrained to a working set of common standards. I agree with earlier comments that XHTML cannot and should not try to be all things to all people, and nor should @role. The value of both of these comes from their finite, standardized nature. This standardization should not be left to "the community" to come up with ad-hoc standards: the W3C *is* the community that cares about this type of thing. We already have an excellent mechanism for extending the semantics of any XML document in namespaces; there is no need to reinvent this function in @role. Or so it seems to me :-) Laurie. -- Laurie Voss Developer, Yahoo! Mobile lvoss@yahoo-inc.com [sentiments expressed are my own and not of my employer]
Received on Wednesday, 30 August 2006 15:56:07 UTC