Welcome to WebHeadStart.org

Web Technologies

Sponsored By

WebHeadStart.org is currently in beta.
Please pardon our appearance as we work to provide you with the most comprehensive reference on today's web technologies.

Interested in advertising on WebHeadStart? Become an advertising partner today!

[WWW-HTML Mailing List Archive Home] [Messages By Thread] [Messages By Date]

Re: Design question about formats based on XHTML 2

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:08:27 -0500
Message-ID: <44F44A5B.20706@aptest.com>
To: Peter Krantz <peter.krantz@gmail.com>
CC: www-html@w3.org

No, I think you are correct that the role attribute is the way to go.  
Just define a taxonomy for roles in your namespace.  However, I agree 
that the text in the description of the role attribute is misleading.  I 
will effect repairs.

Peter Krantz wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> In a project we are looking at XHTML 2 as the foundation for a
> document format in the legal domain. XHTML 2 is a great starting point
> as it is a generic document format covering most of our markup needs.
>
> In our domain we would like to express that some section elements are
> of a specific type. The type belongs to a namespace. The function of
> the section element is the same but we would like to be able to
> extract sections of this specific type.
>
> What would be a good way to markup our sections? The role attribute
> sounds like a candidate but looking at the XHTML2 specification it
> does not feel right ("It is used by applications and assistive
> technologies to determine the purpose of UI widgets."). Is the class
> attribute the way to go?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Peter

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Tuesday, 29 August 2006 14:08:40 GMT
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | WebHeadStart.org © 2005 All Rights Reserved.