- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 04:48:28 -0400
- To: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
Hi, David- David Woolley wrote (on 10/30/2007 4:17 AM): > > Doug Schepers wrote: > >> I have no problem with requiring namespaces per se, but I don't see >> the rationale in this instance. > > Given that a namespace can be a single letter and a colon and that the > main costs in using role are in getting commitment to the concept that > it might be useful and thinking about sensible values for each > attribute, or in choosing a high level authoring tool that does it all > for you, my feeling is that including the namespace will act as a small > extra deterrent to the tendency to embrace and extend, with negligible > cost. I don't understand your point. Deterrent to whom? Embrace and extend what? As I said in my email, my proposal would still require the same semantics, syntax, and UA conformance criteria as the XHTML Role Attribute Module, and a normative reference to that specification. Any extensions of the attribute, such as different value types or special interfaces (a CURIE microparser or normalizer, or a list API, springs to mind), would still be done in updates to the Role Attribute spec (rather than in host languages), so it would apply equally across conforming host languages. Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Staff Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2007 08:48:43 UTC