- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:17:53 +0100
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Henri Sivonen writes:
>> Exactly -- having aria-role and aria:role as aliases is bad design.
> Having only aria-foo and not having aria:foo solves the problem.
That proposal is not, as far as I know, on the table -- I would
certainly argue against it as fundamentally breaking XML design
principles.
As you can see from the minutes of yesterday's call, I'm struggling to
understand what appears to be a strong antipathy towards namespaces
for any purpose in some quarters:
"HT: This constinuency that can't abide namespaces... why is it that
they can't?
"DC: I don't know; I don't share their opinion, but I know they're
out there."
Can you explain this?
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)
iD8DBQFICFkxkjnJixAXWBoRAqCRAJ9FgHxx9TF3Ia4Aopas44WiqRqYrwCeMhJ9
JrJzQKA0GHkS/PMJzBJwANA=
=MvIW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 18 April 2008 08:18:26 UTC