W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > February 2011

[Bug 12148] I strongly believe disallowing 'true' and 'false' in boolean attributes will cause significant confusion in the future. Already, you can find respected web developers incorrectly referring to attributes as true and false. For instance: http://blog.getif

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 20:24:49 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1PrcJN-0003vw-0b@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12148

--- Comment #4 from Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> 2011-02-21 20:24:48 UTC ---
> I'd love it if someone could find some real world examples

I would too; the burden of proof in this case is on those proposing
backwards-incompatible changes, imo.

> why on earth they'd do something like disabled="false" to mean disabled=true.

You're assuming HTML authors necessarily "mean" something when they write some
HTML, as opposed to trial-and-error or cargo-cult copy-paste or a bug in some
CGI.

This is a bad assumption, sadly.

> I don't see why some evangelism to those sites couldn't address the problem.

Evangelism is not free.  Are you volunteering to contact all the sites
involved, however many are discovered, and get them to change what they're
doing?  Or is this a case of "it should be really easy for someone else to do
this"?

> is going to boil down to oops rather than intention.

It doesn't matter whether it's intention or not, as long as there's enough of
it.  Again, data would be good.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 21 February 2011 20:24:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 21 February 2011 20:24:50 GMT