- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 12:51:12 +0000 (UTC)
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: Aaron M Leventhal <aleventh@us.ibm.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "public-xhtml2@w3.org" <public-xhtml2@w3.org>, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org, "wai-xtech@w3.org" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Thu, 29 May 2008, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > > We have to set against the problems with aria: the medium- and > long-term negative aspects of the aria- approach, which focusses on > ease of ARIA integration in text/html environments at the expense of > costly integration throughout the application/...+xml universe. Just so we're clear as to the scales here, the text/html environment consists of some 100 billion pages or so (to a first order approximation), while the application/...+xml universe consists of about 5 million pages. (This is based upon a study of several billion documents I did last year.) We should weigh the costs against those numbers before optimising for the XML case. > From my perspective, the cost of aria: in the text/html environment is > modest, manageable, and declining over time, whereas the cost of aria- > in the application/...+xml universe is large and permanent. The cost of aria: is that it puts up a huge barrier for migration from HTML to XML, thus reducing the value of the XML universe. The cost of aria- is that it makes the W3C look silly for having designed a namespace mechanism that it can't use. Which do we care more about? Migrating to XML, or not looking silly? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2008 12:52:48 UTC