Copyright © 2008 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply.
This note outlines the way in which the XHTML 2 Working Group has addressed comments received during the last call period against the Last Call Working Draft of XHTML Role.
During the last call period for XHTML Role the working group received a few comments. This document summarizes those comments and describes the ways in which the comments were addressed by the XHTML 2 Working Group.
Note that the majority of this document is automatically generated from the Working Group's database of comments. As such, it may contain typographical or stylistic errors. If so, these are contained in the original submissions, and the XHTML 2 Working Group elected to not change these submissions.
This document is a Note of the W3C's XHTML 2 Working Group. This Note may be updated, replaced or rendered obsolete by other W3C documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use W3C Notes as reference material or to cite them as other than "work in progress". This document is work in progress and does not imply endorsement by the W3C membership.
This document has been produced by the W3C XHTML 2 Working Group as part of the HTML Activity. The goals of the XHTML 2 Working Group are discussed in the XHTML 2 Working Group charter.
This document is governed by the 24 January 2002 CPP as amended by the W3C Patent Policy Transition Procedure. W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains Essential Claim(s) must disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy.
Please send detailed comments on this document to www-html-editor@w3.org. We cannot guarantee a personal response, but we will try when it is appropriate. Public discussion on HTML features takes place on the mailing list www-html@w3.org.
A list of current W3C Recommendations and other technical documents can be found at http://www.w3.org/TR.
Issue | Working Group Action | Commentor Position | Change Type | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
8024: Last call comments on XHTML Role Attribute Module | Modify and Accept | None | Editorial | Addressed comments - sent a formal reply. |
8019: XHTML Role Attribute Module: new values and namespaces | Reject | None | None | scoped values are an extension mechanism, and we need some mechanism for ready extension of roles. If CURIEs don't work out, we will have to consider other mechanisms, and full URIs are worthy of consideration. |
8025: XHTML Role Module LC Comments | Accept | None | Editorial | We have simplified the DTD implementation. |
8020: Re: Last call announcement: XHTML Role Attribute Module | Accept | None | Editorial | Thanks for pointing this out. The correct default prefix is indeed http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab# - we have corrected the inconsistency in the text. |
8027: [Role Module] Namespace for 'role' Attribute | Modify and Accept | None | Substantive | Working group agreed to permit the role attribute to be incorporated into a host language. |
8021: Last call announcement: XHTML Role Attribute Module | Accept | None | Editorial | We have corrected the copyright. |
8023: XHTML Role Module LC Comments | Modify and Accept | Agree | Substantive | The working group has agreed to these requests, with the exception of the title value for role (which can be achieved via other methods). |
8017: XHTML Role attribute module | Reject | None | None | The role attribute specification does not require any behavior by user agents. So the interpretation of values by user agents is outside the scope of this specification. This is exactly the same as the way @class works, for example. It is a bucket for holding values. |
8026: Comments on: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-role/#sec_3.1 | Accept | None | Substantive | We have removed the text in 3.1 and just referred to the CURIE draft. |
PROBLEM ID: 8024
STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: Editorial
RESOLUTION: Modify and Accept
USER POSITION: None
NOTES:
Addressed comments - sent a formal reply.
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
From: "Simon Pieters" <simonp@opera.com> I have some comments on: http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xhtml-role-20071004/ Document conformance says: The document MUST conform to the constraints expressed in Appendix A - DTD Implementation, combined with the constraints expressed in its host language implementation. It is unclear to me what this means. *No* document can conform to the constraints expressed in that DTD, because e.g. it doesn't declare any elements, and a document has to have at least one element to be well-formed. So it has to be when that DTD is *combined* with the host language's DTD, but this is not what the draft says. In any case, I don't see why there is a DTD in the spec in the first place. Why can't all conformance requirements be expressed in English prose instead? What if the host language doesn't have a DTD? Then it continues: If the host language is not in the XHTML namespace, the document MUST contain an xmlns declaration for the XHTML Role Attribute Module namespace [XMLNAMES]. Shouldn't that be s/xmlns/xmlns:*/, since attributes cannot be in a namespace and not have a prefix (declaratively, anyway). Furthermore, why require the namespace *declaration*? If I want to add a namespaced role attribute with script, I shouldn't have to also add a namespace declaration with script. The namespace declaration is completely useless in that case. It should say that the attribute must be in the XHTML namespace, and not say anything about namespace declarations. Host Language Conformance says: Finally, the attribute MUST be referenced using its namespace-qualified form (e.g., <myml:myelement xhtml:role='definition'>a term</myml:myelement>). This seems to be different from the previous version of the draft where it seems to imply that it is OK for host languages to use the attribute in no namespace: If the host language does not incorporate the XHTML Role Attribute Module attribute into its own namespace, [...] -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-role-20061113/ Why was this changed? Why can't other host languages use role="" in no namespace? User Agent Conformance says: A conforming user agent MUST support all of the features required in this specification. As far as I can tell, there are no features required in this specification, and therefore UAs can do nothing or anything and still be conforming. Or to put it in another way, it seems to be impossible to write test cases against this specification, and therefore it's impossible to prove non-conformance. Compact URIs says: A CURIE is comprised of two components, a prefix and a reference. The prefix is separated from the reference by a colon (:). It is possible to omit the prefix, and make use of the default prefix. It is also possible to omit both the prefix and the colon, leaving just a reference. This doesn't seem to match the production: curie := [ prefix [ ':' ] ] reference Shouldn't the production be: curie := [ [ prefix ] ':' ] reference ...to match the prose? Why is one if prefix and the colon allowed to be omitted? Shouldn't both have to be omitted, i.e.: curie := [ prefix ':' ] reference ...? Then it continues: A CURIE is a representation of a full IRI. This IRI is obtained by concatenating the IRI associated with the prefix with the reference. The result MUST be a syntactically valid IRI [IRI]. What does it mean when it isn't? What does it mean when the CURIE uses a prefix that is not declared? How is CURIE equivalence performed? By normalizing the two resulting IRIs? Which normalization rules are to be used, in that case? If normalization rules are to be performed, then it is utterly impossible to write style sheets or scripts that target a specific CURIE. It is already impossible to write style sheets for QNames in content. Writing scripts for QNames in content is possible but it's a great hassle. It is a great hassle because the DOM doesn't have any knowledge of QNames in content, and whether a namespace declaration is in scope can change over time. CURIEs have the same problem, but much worse since an IRI can be split anywhere to form a CURIE, and it could use uppercase letters in the domain name, specify a default port, use percentage-escaping, etc., etc. Authors will likely use the same prefixes anyway (e.g., the root element start tag in RSS 1.0 is always <rdf:RDF>, even though the prefix could be anything... it's just cargo-cult copy-paste boilerplate), and they effectively *have to* use the same prefixes if they want to have sane style sheets or scripts that target roles. By extension, it is likely that some implementors will treat the role as an opaque string with a fixed prefix and ignore the namespace declaration and the IRI (cf. some feed readers only recognize RSS 1.0 if the prefix is "rdf:"). Why are CURIEs used at all, as opposed to opaque strings with fixed prefixes? Then it continues: The CURIE prefix '_' is reserved. Why is it reserved if CURIEs aren't opaque strings? The The XHTML Role Attribute section says: The role attribute takes as its value one or more whitespace separated CURIEs. What does "role attribute" mean? An attribute with the local name "role" in no namespace? That is part of an element in the http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml namespace? An attribute with the local name "role" in the http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml namespace? What are UAs to do with namespaced role that is specified on XHTML elements? What are they to do with no-namespace role that is specified on non-XHTML elements? What is "whitespace"? How are UAs to extract the CURIEs from the attribute value (e.g. when other specs require UAs to do something with a specific CURIE)? Then it continues: Any non-qualified value MUST be interpreted in the XHTML namespace, and MUST be taken from the list defined in this section. What is the XHTML namespace? (AFAICT, it could be one of http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml or http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab# .) Are these UA requirements? If so, what does it mean to interpret a value in the XHTML namespace? What are UAs to do with non-qualified values not found in the list? What about CURIEs that have a prefix that is bound to the "XHTML namespace"? What are UAs to do when an element has more than one value found in the list? Cheers, -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
REPLY 1:
From: Shane McCarron <xhtml2-issues@mn.aptest.com> Thanks very much for your comments, and apologies on the delay in replying. The dependency of this spec on CURIEs and the evolution of the CURIE draft necessarily delayed our dealing with comments on the role specification. Replies are embedded below: > > I have some comments on: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xhtml-role-20071004/ > > > Document conformance says: > > The document MUST conform to the constraints expressed in Appendix A - > DTD Implementation, combined with the constraints expressed in its host > language implementation. > > It is unclear to me what this means. *No* document can conform to the > constraints expressed in that DTD, because e.g. it doesn't declare any > elements, and a document has to have at least one element to be > well-formed. So it has to be when that DTD is *combined* with the host > language's DTD, but this is not what the draft says. > > In any case, I don't see why there is a DTD in the spec in the first > place. Why can't all conformance requirements be expressed in English > prose instead? What if the host language doesn't have a DTD? XHTML Modules are required to include implementation(s) and a prose specification. We have corrected the boilerplate text that you correctly note is inappropriate in this specification. > > > Then it continues: > > If the host language is not in the XHTML namespace, the document MUST > contain an xmlns declaration for the XHTML Role Attribute Module > namespace [XMLNAMES]. > > Shouldn't that be s/xmlns/xmlns:*/, since attributes cannot be in a > namespace and not have a prefix (declaratively, anyway). > > Furthermore, why require the namespace *declaration*? If I want to add a > namespaced role attribute with script, I shouldn't have to also add a > namespace declaration with script. The namespace declaration is completely > useless in that case. There are two issues here. First, how do we phase the requirement for declaring a namespace prefix. We agree that "xmlns declaration" is a little colloquial. However, we do not think that xmlns:* is appropriate either. We have changed the language to indicate that you need to have a namespace declaration for the XHTML Namespace as required in the namespace spec. As to requiring a namespace declaration at all... First, XHTML doesn't really envision the idea of adding attributes to a document after it is loaded (after DOMready or the LOAD event fires). Second, referring to an element or attribute using a namespace prefix that is NOT defined is invalid - so we cannot condone that. You need a namespace declaration if you are going to reference the role attribute in its namespace. Note however that if the host language includes the role attribute in its own namespace, no such declaration NOR prefixing is required. > It should say that the attribute must be in the XHTML namespace, and not > say anything about namespace declarations. > > > Host Language Conformance says: > > Finally, the attribute MUST be referenced using its namespace-qualified > form (e.g., <myml:myelement xhtml:role='definition'>a > term</myml:myelement>). > > This seems to be different from the previous version of the draft where > it seems to imply that it is OK for host languages to use the attribute in > no namespace: > > If the host language does not incorporate the XHTML Role Attribute > Module attribute into its own namespace, [...] > -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-role-20061113/ > > Why was this changed? Why can't other host languages use role="" in no > namespace? We have changed this back. > > > User Agent Conformance says: > > A conforming user agent MUST support all of the features required in > this specification. > > As far as I can tell, there are no features required in this > specification, and therefore UAs can do nothing or anything and still be > conforming. Or to put it in another way, it seems to be impossible to > write test cases against this specification, and therefore it's impossible > to prove non-conformance. There are no required features, you are correct. We have removed the section. > > Compact URIs says: > > A CURIE is comprised of two components, a prefix and a reference. The > prefix is separated from the reference by a colon (:). It is possible to > omit the prefix, and make use of the default prefix. It is also possible > to omit both the prefix and the colon, leaving just a reference. > > This doesn't seem to match the production: > > curie := [ prefix [ ':' ] ] reference > > Shouldn't the production be: > > curie := [ [ prefix ] ':' ] reference > > ...to match the prose? Yes, and thanks for noticing. However, we have removed the entire section from the document in favor of referencing the CURIE spec. We have taken the liberty of adding the remainder of your comments on CURIEs to the collection of comments on that document, and will respond to them in that context. > > The The XHTML Role Attribute section says: > > The role attribute takes as its value one or more whitespace separated > CURIEs. > > What does "role attribute" mean? An attribute with the local name "role" > in no namespace? That is part of an element in the > http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml namespace? An attribute with the local name > "role" in the http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml namespace? What are UAs to do > with namespaced role that is specified on XHTML elements? What are they to > do with no-namespace role that is specified on non-XHTML elements? The XHTML Modularization spec requires that you NOT use a prefixed version of an attribute in the XHTML namespace on an element that is in the XHTML namespace. The core of your question seems to be "what does 'role attribute' mean"? In the context of this specification, the term "role attribute" is meant to be interpreted as any use of role that claims to conform to this specification, in whatever namespace it is being used. > > What is "whitespace"? How are UAs to extract the CURIEs from the attribute > value (e.g. when other specs require UAs to do something with a specific > CURIE)? Whitespace is a common term used in these specifications (see for example http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#adef-class). > > > Then it continues: > > Any non-qualified value MUST be interpreted in the XHTML namespace, and > MUST be taken from the list defined in this section. > > What is the XHTML namespace? (AFAICT, it could be one of > http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml or http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab# .) That is correct. The use of the term "namespace" there was unfortunate. We have cleared up the text. > > Are these UA requirements? If so, what does it mean to interpret a value > in the XHTML namespace? What are UAs to do with non-qualified values not > found in the list? What about CURIEs that have a prefix that is bound to > the "XHTML namespace"? The CURIE spec clarifies this. Basically, CURIEs with no prefix are permitted to be interpreted with a default prefix mapping. What an application does with that interpretation is application specific. > > What are UAs to do when an element has more than one value found in the > list? As you have correctly pointed out, there are no UA behavior requirements in this spec. So there is no guidance as to how single NOR multiple values are to be interpted. This is the same as, for example, the class attribute in HTML 4 and XHTML.
PROBLEM ID: 8019
STATE: Feedback
EDIT: None
RESOLUTION: Reject
USER POSITION: None
NOTES:
scoped values are an extension mechanism, and we need some mechanism for ready extension of roles. If CURIEs don't work out, we will have to consider other mechanisms, and full URIs are worthy of consideration.
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu> There's a a deep and serious problem with section 4.1, Extending the collection of roles. This section states: It is possible to define additional role values. Such values MUST be defined in their own namespace. We've been down this road before in other specs such as XPointer, W3C Schemas and XPath. There is nothing in the Namespaces spec that in any way indicates that a qualified name may apear in an attribute value. There is no standard way to indicate the namespace mappings in scope for an attribute *value* as distinct from an attribute *name*. 1. If it it is your intention that such values inherit the namespace bindings of their parent element, this must be explicitly stated. There is nothing in the namespaces spec to indicate that applications can apply namespace bindings to attribute values. 2. This approach only works if these values only appear in an actual XHTML document. If it is ever the intention to use such role values outside of XHTML (or some XML-host language) you're hosed. XPath and XPointer both foundered on these shoals. 3. Even if the role attribute value only has meaning within an XML host language, embedding QNames in attribute values is still a pragmatically bad idea. We have almost ten years of experience with multiple specifications to prove that QNames in attribute values confuse users and complexify implementations. Please find another way to achieve your worthy goals without depending on namespace prefix resolution in attribute values. I suggest simply abandoning the CURIE mechanism and making the role values full, absolute URIs. Unlike XPath, there really isn't a compelling reason for an abbreviated syntax here. There'll usually only be one of these on any given element. It's more like an href attribute than anything else. People have no trouble using full URIs in those when appropriate. -- Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@metalab.unc.edu Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published! http://www.cafeaulait.org/books/javaio2/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596527500/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA/
REPLY 1:
From: Shane McCarron <xhtml2-issues@mn.aptest.com> Thanks for your comment. scoped values are an extension mechanism, and we need some mechanism for ready extension of roles. If CURIEs don't work out, we will have to consider other mechanisms, and full URIs are worthy of consideration.
PROBLEM ID: 8025
STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: Editorial
RESOLUTION: Accept
USER POSITION: None
NOTES:
We have simplified the DTD implementation.
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
From: "Martin Kliehm" <martin.kliehm@bluemars.net> Reference: http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xhtml-role-20071004/ It might be a few hours late, but I wanted to remark that the DTD implementation is a little cumbersome. Currently it would look like this: <!-- bring in the Role Attribute Module --> <!ENTITY % xhtml-role.mod PUBLIC "-//W3C//ENTITIES XHTML Role Attribute 1.0//EN" "http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml-role-1.mod"> %xhtml-role.mod; <!ENTITY % xhtml-role-qname.mod PUBLIC "-//W3C//ENTITIES XHTML Role Attribute Qnames 1.0//EN" "http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml-role-qname-1.mod"> %xhtml-role-qname.mod; <!-- add the 'role' attribute to common elements --> <!ENTITY %Common.extra.attrib "%xhtml-role.attrs.qname;"> I understand that the universal approach of the role module does allow it to be included in other languages and thus the extension of Common.extra.attrib cannot be achieved within the module because that would be too XHTML specific. On the other hand that's exactly what other modules like the target module do. Alas it is quite inconvenient to manually implement both xhtml-role-1.mod and xhtml-role-qname-1.mod. Since xhtml-role-1.mod "does nothing," I would like to suggest to include the call of xhtml-role-qname-1.mod within xhtml-role-1.mod: <!-- bring in the Role Attribute Module --> <!ENTITY % xhtml-role.mod PUBLIC "-//W3C//ENTITIES XHTML Role Attribute 1.0//EN" "http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml-role-1.mod"> %xhtml-role.mod; <!-- add the 'role' attribute to common elements --> <!ENTITY %Common.extra.attrib "%xhtml-role.attrs.qname;"> With xhtml-role-1.mod looking like this: <!-- ...................................................................... --> <!-- XHTML Role Module .................................................... --> <!-- file: xhtml-role-1.mod This is XHTML Role - the Role Attribute Module for XHTML. Copyright 2006 W3C (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. This DTD module is identified by the PUBLIC and SYSTEM identifiers: PUBLIC "-//W3C//ENTITIES XHTML Role Attribute 1.0//EN" SYSTEM "http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml-role-1.mod" Revisions: (none) ....................................................................... --> <!-- bring in the Qualified Name module (required) --> <!ENTITY % xhtml-role-qname.mod PUBLIC "-//W3C//ENTITIES XHTML Role Attribute Qnames 1.0//EN" "http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml-role-qname-1.mod"> %xhtml-role-qname.mod; <!-- end of xhtml-role-1.mod --> Also I would like to point out that there might be a conflict with WAI roles and states, though this could be based on my limited knowledge of the DTD syntax. If the role attribute is bolted onto XHTML elements with <!ENTITY %Common.extra.attrib "%xhtml-role.attrs.qname;"> but Common.extra.attrib also needs to be appended by <!ENTITY %Common.extra.attrib "%aaa.attrs.qname;"> the latter overwrites the first. Or could this be solved by using ATTLIST? That said I do very much appreciate the role attribute as it is closing a semantic gap and adds accessibility. Also with a single attribute a lot of bloated extra elements in HTML5 can be avoided. Best regards, Martin Kliehm
PROBLEM ID: 8020
STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: Editorial
RESOLUTION: Accept
USER POSITION: None
NOTES:
Thanks for pointing this out. The correct default prefix is indeed http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab# - we have corrected the inconsistency in the text.
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
From: Masataka Yakura <yakura-masataka@mitsue.co.jp> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020605050603070203090107 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, folks. > This is a last call announcement for: > > XHTML Role Attribute Module > A module to support role classification of elements > http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-role/ And the Japanese translation is ready :) http://standards.mitsue.co.jp/resources/w3c/TR/2007/WD-xhtml-role-20071004/ (Oops, seems I mistyped the date, will correct it later). Some questions: 1. There's missing ">" (>) in rdf:RDF element (Appendix B) > ... > xmlns:states="http://www.w3.org/2005/07/aaa#" > xmlns:wairole="http://www.w3.org/2005/01/wai-rdf/GUIRoleTaxonomy#" <- here! > <owl:Class rdf:ID="banner"> > ... 2. I wonder in which namespace that non-qualified role values are interpreted. In sec 3.1.1 the CURIE syntax defines "If the prefix is omitted from a CURIE, the default value of http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab# MUST be used." [1] However, the rightafter Sec 4 tells that "Any non-qualified value MUST be interpreted in the XHTML namespace" [2]. If I'm not misunderstood, the prefix-omitted CURIE and non-qualified role value means the same thing (e.g. role="somevalue"). Then, what's the namespace for such value, 1999/xhtml/vocab# , 1999/xhtml , or 1999/xhtml# [3]? 3. Similarly, the value for xml:base in taxonomy uses the XHTML namespace http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml . <rdf:RDF xml:base="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" > <rdf:RDF xml:base="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" > ... Hence the full URI reference would be like http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtmlbanner and we'll have hard time finding which one's the namespace or which one's the Class identifier. I wonder what's the right value for the attribute, xhtml# or xmtml/vocab# . [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-role/#sec_3.1.1. [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-role/#s_role_module_attributes [3] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/26-xhtml-minutes#item04 Thanks, -- Masataka Yakura yakura-masataka@mitsue.co.jp Front-end Engineer Research and Development Division Mitsue-Links Co., Ltd. http://www.mitsue.co.jp/english/ --------------020605050603070203090107 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name="yakura-masataka.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="yakura-masataka.vcf" begin:vcard fn:Masataka Yakura n:Yakura;Masataka org:Mitsue-Links Co., Ltd.;Research and Development Division adr:6-22-1 Nishi-Shinjuku;;Shinjuku Square Tower 15F, 18F;Shinjuku-ku;Tokyo;163-1115;Japan email;internet:yakura-masataka@mitsue.co.jp title:Front-end Engineer x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.mitsue.co.jp/english/ version:2.1 end:vcard --------------020605050603070203090107--
REPLY 1:
From: Shane McCarron <xhtml2-issues@mn.aptest.com> Thanks for pointing this out. The correct default prefix is indeed http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab# - we have corrected the inconsistency in the text. > > Hi, folks. > >> This is a last call announcement for: >> >> XHTML Role Attribute Module >> A module to support role classification of elements >> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-role/ > > And the Japanese translation is ready :) > http://standards.mitsue.co.jp/resources/w3c/TR/2007/WD-xhtml-role-20071004/ > (Oops, seems I mistyped the date, will correct it later). > > Some questions: > > 1. There's missing ">" (>) in rdf:RDF element (Appendix B) >> ... >> xmlns:states="http://www.w3.org/2005/07/aaa#" >> xmlns:wairole="http://www.w3.org/2005/01/wai-rdf/GUIRoleTaxonomy#" <- > here! >> <owl:Class rdf:ID="banner"> >> ... > > 2. I wonder in which namespace that non-qualified role values are > interpreted. > > In sec 3.1.1 the CURIE syntax defines "If the prefix is omitted from a > CURIE, the default value of http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab# MUST be > used." [1] However, the rightafter Sec 4 tells that "Any non-qualified > value MUST be interpreted in the XHTML namespace" [2]. > > If I'm not misunderstood, the prefix-omitted CURIE and non-qualified > role value means the same thing (e.g. role="somevalue"). Then, what's > the namespace for such value, 1999/xhtml/vocab# , 1999/xhtml , or > 1999/xhtml# [3]? > > 3. Similarly, the value for xml:base in taxonomy uses the XHTML > namespace http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml . > <rdf:RDF xml:base="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" >> <rdf:RDF xml:base="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" >> ... > > Hence the full URI reference would be like > http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtmlbanner and we'll have hard time finding > which one's the namespace or which one's the Class identifier. I wonder > what's the right value for the attribute, xhtml# or xmtml/vocab# . > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-role/#sec_3.1.1. > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-role/#s_role_module_attributes > [3] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/26-xhtml-minutes#item04
PROBLEM ID: 8027
STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: Substantive
RESOLUTION: Modify and Accept
USER POSITION: None
NOTES:
Working group agreed to permit the role attribute to be incorporated into a host language.
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> Hi, XHTML2 WG- I believe I've mentioned this in emails to this list before, but I wanted to make sure you had a Last Call comment about it (my apologies for it being a bit late, I didn't realize the deadline was coming up so soon). The XHTML Role Attribute Module [1] states in section 2.2. ("Host Language Conformance") that, "the attribute MUST be referenced using its namespace-qualified form (e.g., <myml:myelement xhtml:role='definition'>a term</myml:myelement>)." [2] An earlier version of the spec [3] did not have this constraint, stating instead that, "If the host language does not incorporate the XHTML Role Attribute Module attribute into its own namespace, the document MUST contain an xmlns declaration for the XHTML Role Attribute Module namespace". While this is a conformance statement on the document, it seems to have implications for host language conformance as well, implying a more relaxed approach that allows a host language to incorporate the module directly, without need for the namespace declaration and prefix. I have no problem with requiring namespaces per se, but I don't see the rationale in this instance. In the case of complex specs with intertwingled aspects and multiple internal dependencies, or a large number of elements or attributes, and a commensurately complex or large schema/DTD, there is clear justification for requiring that the whole be used, and maintained in its own namespace. But the 'role' attribute is only one attribute and its value type, and even that type is ultimately meant to be spun off into its own spec, CURIEs. I don't see the pragmatic or even theoretical gains for referencing the XHTML NS for a single attribute (in SVG, for instance). If I'm missing something, please let me know what it is. I believe that the use of the XHTML NS should be optional in the case of host language conformance. There are good reasons for giving the option of a separate NS, so that it can still be used by authors in languages that don't support it directly; but if a language wants to support it directly, I think there should not be the namespace requirement, merely the stricture that the host language should not change or add to the semantics or conformance criteria of the 'role' attribute, and a normative reference to the XHTML Role Attribute Module. (Disclaimer: Please note that this is my own opinion, and doesn't necessarily reflect that of the WGs that I'm in, or the W3C in general.) [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-role/ [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-role/#hostconf [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-role-20060725/#docconf Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Staff Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI
PROBLEM ID: 8021
STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: Editorial
RESOLUTION: Accept
USER POSITION: None
NOTES:
We have corrected the copyright.
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
From: "Rotan Hanrahan" <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com> As Role was a main concern during the Metadata for Content Adaptation workshop (in 2004), I welcome this module. I have briefly read through it, and commend the foresight of extensible roles, plus the baseline of simple roles in the default namespace. I expect that my colleagues in the UWA will respond as a group in due course, but I offer this quick (and trivial) observation that the copyright year should be 2007, no? Regards, ---Rotan. -----Original Message----- From: chairs-request@w3.org [mailto:chairs-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Steven Pemberton Sent: 05 October 2007 17:52 To: chairs@w3.org; XHTML WG Cc: www-html@w3.org Subject: Last call announcement: XHTML Role Attribute Module This is a last call announcement for: XHTML Role Attribute Module A module to support role classification of elements http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-role/ Comments should be sent to www-html-editor@w3.org The review ending date is 26 October 2007 The group resolved to make this transition at http://www.w3.org/2007/07/11-xhtml-minutes#item03 We particularly invite the Protocols & Formats Working Group of the Web Accessibility Initiative and the Ubiquitous Web Applications WG to review. For some background information, we refer you to http://www.w3.org/TR/aria-roadmap/ and http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Accessible_DHTML Patent disclosure page: http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/32107/status Best wishes, Roland Merrick, Steven Pemberton
REPLY 1:
From: Shane McCarron <xhtml2-issues@mn.aptest.com> We have corrected the copyright dates - thanks for your comment! > As Role was a main concern during the Metadata for Content Adaptation > workshop (in 2004), I welcome this module. I have briefly read through > it, and commend the foresight of extensible roles, plus the baseline of > simple roles in the default namespace. I expect that my colleagues in > the UWA will respond as a group in due course, but I offer this quick > (and trivial) observation that the copyright year should be 2007, no? > > Regards, > > ---Rotan. > > -----Original Message----- > From: chairs-request@w3.org [mailto:chairs-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of > Steven Pemberton > Sent: 05 October 2007 17:52 > To: chairs@w3.org; XHTML WG > Cc: www-html@w3.org > Subject: Last call announcement: XHTML Role Attribute Module > > > This is a last call announcement for: > > XHTML Role Attribute Module > A module to support role classification of elements > http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-role/ > > Comments should be sent to www-html-editor@w3.org > > The review ending date is 26 October 2007 > > The group resolved to make this transition at > http://www.w3.org/2007/07/11-xhtml-minutes#item03 > > We particularly invite the Protocols & Formats Working Group of the Web > > Accessibility Initiative and the Ubiquitous Web Applications WG to > review. > > For some background information, we refer you to > http://www.w3.org/TR/aria-roadmap/ and > http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Accessible_DHTML > > Patent disclosure page: > http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/32107/status > > Best wishes, > > Roland Merrick, Steven Pemberton > > >
PROBLEM ID: 8023
STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: Substantive
RESOLUTION: Modify and Accept
USER POSITION: Agree
NOTES:
The working group has agreed to these requests, with the exception of the title value for role (which can be achieved via other methods).
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org> <note class="inTransmittal"> Reference: http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xhtml-role-20071004/ Here are the Last Call comments on this draft from PFWG. We would be glad to discuss them with you if anything is unclear or contentious. Al /chair, PFWG </note> Having reviewed the XHTML Role Module draft of 4 October 2007, and having tracked the draft's progress over the course of its development, the PFWG is pleased to report that the document admirably suits the PFWG's needs and concerns and provides several prominent illustrations of how one can use the role extension model to create custom roles that benefit accessibility. Accessibility concerns and advice are woven into the woof and weave of the XHTML Role Attribute Module, which is a model of integrating what once may have been denigrated as "merely" accessibility concerns into "mainstream" concerns -- not merely in the document's prose, but in its examples, as well. The XHTML Roles Module meets all of the PFWG's requirements, with the exception of the following requests: 1. The addition of explicit markup, which is consistent across formats, for including ARIA in HTML, XML, XHTML, and other XML-dialects and specialized markup languages. The PFWG has specified ARIA as a cross-cutting technology, so the issue of embedding ARIA through the use of the XHTML Role Module in a consistent, standardized manner -- no matter what the format in which it is embedded -- is paramount; 2. The PFWG also notes that including "role" via the XHTML namespace would not require changes to SVG, and could easily be (and, should be) incorporated into SVG 1.2 Full (http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG12/) However, there's no provision in the XHTML Role Module for a host language to integrate it without using the XHTML namespace, whereas the pre-Last Call drafts allowed bare-name integration. According to discussions with implementors of XML-based languages (especially in the realm of specialized markup), the latter would be preferable. Therefore, the PFWG would like to inquire why that was deemed impractical? 3. The PFWG requests the addition of the value of "title" to the list of predefined roles 3A) Rationale: * Currently, there are predefined roles for "contentinfo", "main" and "secondary" -- why is there not a predefined role for title? Title is a natural extension to the list of predefined roles -- for example, at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champagne (UIUC) a tool has been developed based on a simple algorithm: H1 content is usually (or should usually be) a sub-string of the content of the TITLE element -- the UIUC tools look for that pattern, and if it is not found, it is flagged: for example, "H1 doesn't match TITLE" or "no H1 in document"; however, an author may have included the title in a level2 heading, or there may be text in the document that better titles the page than the contents defined for the TITLE element. Therefore, the algorithm is not hierarchical, but numeric -- if not H1, then H2, and so on. No matter where the content which "titles" the document is in a heading or inline prose, the repair feature of the UIUC tool is predicated on the best practices rule that every document has an implicit H1 derived from its TITLE, no matter how the TITLE is defined -- using the TITLE element or through the use of the predefined role "title". ---------------------------------------------------------- ACCOUNTABILITY, n. The mother of caution. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary ---------------------------------------------------------- Gregory J. Rosmaita, oedipus@hicom.net Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/ UBATS-United Advocates for Talking Signs: http://ubats.org ----------------------------------------------------------
PROBLEM ID: 8017
STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: None
RESOLUTION: Reject
USER POSITION: None
NOTES:
The role attribute specification does not require any behavior by user agents. So the interpretation of values by user agents is outside the scope of this specification. This is exactly the same as the way @class works, for example. It is a bucket for holding values.
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
From: Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net> This question applies to the XHTML Role Attribute Module draft and to the corresponding section in the published XHTML 2.0 working draft. "The ROLE attribute takes as its value one or more white-space-separated QNames" (section 3). How should user agents treat a role attribute containing two or more QNames, the semantics of which, and hence the behaviours associated with which, are mutually exclusive? This is the case in which the author of the XHTML document specifies mutually incompatible roles for the same element. Informally, I would expect the user agent's implementation of role to operate somewhat as follows: 1. Taking namespace qualifications into account, obtain the intersection of the set of roles specified in the value of the ROLE attribute, and the set of roles recognized by the user agent. 2. Perform whatever processing (in the most general sense of the term) is associated with each of those roles. Unless I am mistaken (which is perfectly possible) there is scope for an interoperability problem to arise when mutually inconsistent roles are specified: user agents could differ regarding which role is given precedence in this circumstance. A simple rule, for example that the first role specified in the value of the attribute takes priority over later, incompatible roles, would suffice to address this problem.
PROBLEM ID: 8026
STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: Substantive
RESOLUTION: Accept
USER POSITION: None
NOTES:
We have removed the text in 3.1 and just referred to the CURIE draft.
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
From: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com> Re: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-role/#sec_3.1. 1) Section 3.1 falls inside the scope of section 3. which claims normative force. However, sction 3.1.1 indicates "Note that this syntax definition will ultimately be defined in an external document [CURIE]." Please complete the work of creating the referenced external document and remove section 3.1 and its subsections from this document. I'd further note that the collection of documents: a) http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-role/ b) http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-rdfa-syntax-20070927/ c) http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-curie-20070905/ Does not present a consistent picture of which articulation of CURIEs it is intended to develop along the REC track. a) cites a version of c) while b) seems self contained. 2) Section 3.1 states: "In order to allow for the scoped expression of role values, this specification uses a superset of of QNames that allows the contraction of all URIs (QNames have a syntactic restriction on the sorts of URI that can be contracted). These Compact URIs are called CURIEs here." Please make it *very* clear that CURIEs are a syntactic superset of QNAMEs only. The value space of CURIEs and QNAMES are very different - the former being URIs (or maybe IRIs) and the latter being a pair of a URI and a local name. 3) It is not clear to me where the onus lines to either a) update the XML Schema Datatype definition of xsd:anyURI to accomodate CURIEs or b) to define an XML Schema Datatype definition so that the use of CURIE can be properly specified in XML Schema based language specifications. However, if CURIEs are to be 1st class citizens that work needs to be done somewhere. 4) The text here and similar text at http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-rdfa-syntax-20070927/#s_curies are different and inconsistent wrt to which URI to use in the absense of a prefix. Also, the optionality of the ':' differs between the two. I think the other document has it correct. Please at least align the two text, and preferably complete the external process of defining CURIEs. 5) In the absense of a prefix a CURIE is taken has having default ?? of http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#. Given that all prefix expansion is seem aligned with in-scope namespace decls, I'd expect the defaulting to be similarly aligned. Also, given the potentially generic nature of CURIEs as a construct in other languages, I would rather its defaulting was not bound to the the XHTML namespace. Regards Stuart Williams Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England