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

[Bug 12365] Add @fullsize to <img>

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:03:33 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Q29fp-0000mf-JW@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12365

Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-i
                   |                            |ua.no

--- Comment #2 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2011-03-22 22:03:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> If "every functionality [is] left to script", then we aren't actually creating
> a "more appropriate element" than just letting authors use data-* attributes.

It depends on what you mean by "appropriate". I was thinking "if the spec says
you should use attribute x for feature y", then attribute x is more
appropriate. I believe that that is the spirit of the spec text regarding
data-*.

That said, I am open to add more to @fullsize than simply @data-fullsize. But I
don't think we need to add very much. E.g. @fullsize - unlike @cite - don't
need any user interface. It only needs a DOM interface - a DOM interface that
it similar to that of @cite.

But if vendors are willing to add more ... Certainly Mr Wilson wanted more. But
Wilson also said that the idea, because of that, was dismissed by Ian.

-- 
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 Tuesday, 22 March 2011 22:03:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 March 2011 22:03:43 GMT