W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2007

Re: Note on terminology: Attribute types

From: Henrik Dvergsdal <henrik.dvergsdal@hibo.no>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:22:59 +0200
Message-Id: <AE4F9372-ABCB-4F5E-9193-15A27843CD8E@hibo.no>
To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

On 12 Jun 2007, at 13:41, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> Where does it use "element attribute"?

Section 3.14.9 refers to "media element attributes". I guess this  
should be understood as "content attributes pertaining to media  
elements", but it can also be taken as a special class of element  

> The specification claims it uses "content attribute" unless the use  
> of "attribute" is not ambiguous.

Just "attribute" also refers to DOM attributes in many places.

>  I have found no real problems with that so far.

Even though the text, strictly speaking, is not ambigous, it may  
constitute a real problem that readers have to infer the meaning from  
the context. Not all readers will be as familiar with the spec as you  
are and if we can avoid this with simple means, it is worh  
considering. Relying too much on context makes the text harder to  
read, increases the risk of misunderstanding and makes communication  
more difficult (because you cannot allways bring the entire context  
into a conversation). In addition it increases the risk of  
introducing ambiguities in the text that will be difficult to spot  
for people who are familiar with the entire spec.

So why not put in an "element" and "DOM" here and there just to  
explicate the difference?

OTOH, I realize that it will be inconvenient to use the term "DOM  
attribute" in sections that exclusively deal with the DOM, for  
instance, so enforcing a spec-wide convention is probably a little  
too much.

Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2007 15:23:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:22 UTC