21412 2013-03-27 12:24:48 +0000 Extensibility of @role should be better defined 2015-06-05 14:33:09 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG HTML5 spec unspecified PC All RESOLVED WORKSFORME a11y, aria P2 normal --- 1 robin robin eoconnor faulkner.steve hans.hillen hsivonen mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking rdeltour public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 85052 0 robin 2013-03-27 12:24:48 +0000 The use case is adding values that match new needs, such as those found in epub. The ARIA role attribute document has a variety of indications about CURIEs and XHTML, but these are hardly applicable. A clearer description of the extensibility would help. 85089 1 hsivonen 2013-03-28 13:21:42 +0000 (In reply to comment #0) > The use case is adding values that match new needs, such as those found in > epub. Do you mean that the stuff that lives in epub:type should live in role? Or something else? Is there any Reading System implementor interest in epub:type beyond the footnote stuff? Frankly, to me, it looks like someone interested in semantics for the sake of semantics got carried away without being backed by true implementor interest. (I'm aware of BlueGriffon. I'm asking specifically about Reading System implementor interest.) > The ARIA role attribute document has a variety of indications about CURIEs > and XHTML, but these are hardly applicable. The role attribute doc is old XHTML WG stuff. Doesn't apply to HTML5. > A clearer description of the extensibility would help. How about: "If you need new roles and you have secured implementor interest from two independent browser engine implementors, mint some and let the PFWG know so that collisions can be avoided."? I don't see a need for a mechanism beyond collision avoidance. 85090 2 hsivonen 2013-03-28 13:23:12 +0000 (IIRC, I already suggested this at TPAC 2010.) 87187 3 eoconnor 2013-05-02 21:21:27 +0000 I don't think we should use role="" for anything but ARIA roles, so I don't think we need to do anything here.