Re: Next steps for the ARIA syntax discussion

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:52:25 -0300, Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>  
wrote:

> On Jun 3, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

>> It appears we agree. The elements should be in the html namespace. The  
>> attributes in the null namespace.
>
> But only for non-XML namespace aware documents (or by extension  
> documents unaware of other namespace recommendations). The point I'm  
> trying to make and that I'm not sure we agree on is that recommendations  
> such as HTML5 should not be trying to anticipate what the XML namespaces  
> recommendation says about their attributes. It creates dependencies and  
> undermines valuable abstractions, and we don't want to go there.
>
> If that all makes sense to you and you agree, then indeed we do agree.

Oh. Then we disagree on the outcomes :(

I think we agree on the principle.

Saying that the attributes in HTML are in the null namespace does not  
anticipate anything that some future spec might say, nor does it conflict  
with any current draft I know of, with regard to XML - it is in fact  
perfectly in line with the specs and implementations that have emerged in  
the 10 years of XML.

It *also* simplifies the process of building applications, and the process  
of explaining how to add aria to a new XML or non-XML spec.

These two reasons are why I believe the PFWG will adopt the solution I  
suggested above as its preferred model for both HTML and XML languages.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals   Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com

Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2008 19:58:59 UTC