- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:13:53 +0100
- To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "Michael Cooper" <cooper@w3.org>, "Al Gilman" <Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, "TAG List" <www-tag@w3.org>, "Judy Brewer" <jbrewer@w3.org>, "W3C WAI-PFWG" <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Anne van Kesteren writes: > Your solution also doesn't solve any of the problems: > > * Authors cannot use setAttribute() and getAttribute(). Instead they > have to write a set of custom methods. This gives increased authoring > cost. I have said several times there is a cost. It's a small cost. The proposed aria- alternative has a cost for authors too. I think it's a high cost, and it affects _all_ ARIA users, not just those writing script. > * Authors cannot style these attributes properly accross clients. Is there any styling requirement for these attributes? Suppose IE8 supported [aria\:...] selectors, would that make a difference to you? > * If at some point in the future we want to give meaning to the colon > in HTML5 we couldn't do it because this solution for ARIA would be > broken by such a decision. Not at all -- it's a forward-compatible solution. > * This solution introduces two different sets of attributes rather > than one. I don't think that's architecturally sound and I think it > will be confusing for authors trying to switch from HTML to XHTML. (I > don't expect people to use the abstract methods they have to make > themselves.) I don't understand -- it specifically introduces _one_ set of attributes, namely aria:..., instead of two, i.e. aria-... and aria:... > * This solution would violate several HTML design principles[1] as > well. Most importantly "DOM Consistency", but also "Degrade > Gracefully", I disagree -- it precisely provides for graceful degradation > "Evolution Not Revolution", You'll have to explain how. > "Solve Real Problems", Sure seems to me to solve the problem at hand, without introducing new ones > "Priority of Constituencies", Again, explain please. > and "Avoid Needless Complexity". Two sets of attributes, with complex "when to use which" rules, are simpler than one? ht - -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh Half-time member of W3C Team 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFICFhFkjnJixAXWBoRAgP/AJ9kjA72XG2UK/UZ7n0kgE/TtIr5fACffvtv 8P5l9JH5SGjtwd7peQcWyfA= =bJEs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 18 April 2008 08:15:00 UTC