Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

>> <var>i</var> => <code role="compsci:variable">i</code>
> 
> Some automatic translation programs recognize <samp> and/or <code> 
> markup and treat the element's content as something that shall not be 
> translated.

Wasn't XHTML 2.0 supposed to be NOT backwards compatible, or do you mean 
there are automatic translation programs who currently recognise XHTML 
2.0 already?

> I can imagine why (though I don't agree about <samp>): these elements
> have mostly been used by their good old HTML definitions, which are 
> semantically relatively clear, so programs can actually make some use of 
> them and avoid foolishness like translating command and function names 
> when processing a text that mentions them. Does anyone honestly expect 
> programs to do such things with role="..." attributes?

If a convention is established, I wouldn't think it unreasonable.

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke
__________________________________________________________
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com 
__________________________________________________________
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/ 
__________________________________________________________