W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: URL decomposition attributes on <a>, confusingness of references

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:59:13 -0700
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <2A2B094B-ED70-47CF-8ABB-908000D741CB@apple.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>

On Aug 30, 2009, at 6:25 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Ian Hickson<ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>
>>> However, the name collision between markup attributes and IDL
>>> attributes. The spec should make sure to qualify as "IDL  
>>> attribute" or
>>> "markup attribute" wherever there is potential ambiguity.
>>
>> The terms I've used are "DOM attributes" and "content attributes". If
>> there's a case where there is ambiguity and I haven't qualified the  
>> term,
>> then please let me know.
>>
>> I've fixed the URL decomposition attributes so they are always  
>> referenced
>> as DOM attributes.
>
> For what it's worth, I've always found "DOM attribute" and "content
> attribute" to be very ambiguous terms. I'm sure they are well defined
> in the spec, however just reading the spec I'd have to look them up
> basically every time.
>
> The terms Maciej is proposing I think would be much more intuitive.

I didn't mean to be picky about the names - I just didn't recall what  
terms the spec used at the moment of writing. But I do think my terms  
are less ambiguous than the current spec terms. After all, both kinds  
of attributes are "in the DOM" in some sense, and in some usages,  
"content" refers to the DOM. I'm not sure changing throughout would be  
worth the effort though.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 01:59:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:44 GMT