- From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
- Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 11:41:22 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>, public-pfwg-comments@w3.org
<quote cite="http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/05/01-minutes#item05"> <DanC> (hmm... above that aria-haspopup example it says "To pull in this information we again use namepaces to extend XHTML. " Color me befuddled and perflexed.) </quote> Reference: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-primer/#properties Note the editorial note in the Editor's draft > Read 2 sentences previous. Is that namespace sentence still true? The answer to this question is, 'No.' Thanks for catching this legacy language in the document. It is no longer correct. It's left over via cut and paste editing from an earlier version of the Roadmap when we were based in XHTML 1.1 and had a not-so-hot approach to insertion in text/html. history (kindness of DanC): <quote cite="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Apr/0226.html"> The ARIA design started by developing a vocabulary using fully qualified URIs so as not to squat on anyone else's namespace. [...] but as the design matured, interactions between ARIA and the HTML-as-she-are-spoke host language dominated the business of getting the value of ARIA into the hands of the most authors. </quote> history (kindness of TimBL): <quote cite="http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/05/01-minutes#item05"> TBL: A different and perhaps worse problem. They originally had an ordered set of tokens in the class field. First of all, class is already unordered. I suggested they use attributes and this is the result. </quote> Al PS: Editors, please pick up the editors' note and strike the sentence.
Received on Saturday, 3 May 2008 15:42:15 UTC