W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Re: no change proposal for ISSUE-55, but a new plan for @profile

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:26:46 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad1002210726s7349f104ue364bbcd6d58709@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, tantek@cs.stanford.edu, Krzysztof MaczyƄski <1981km@gmail.com>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, public-html@w3.org
2010/2/21 Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>:
> Julian Reschke, Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:52:27 +0100:
>> On 21.02.2010 09:42, Tantek Celik wrote:
>>> In short, nothing for meta name (invisible data antipattern), and
>>> nothing for data-* which is not intended for use as shared
>>> vocabulary (as far as I can tell from reading the spec).
>>
>> ...which *does* mean that meta/@name needs to be included.
>>
>> I understand the antipattern argument, but that's orthogonal to the
>> definition of @profile.
>>
>> I agree with the part about data-*.
>
> So then we are at least two persons that think data-* *should* be
> included.

If I'm reading Julian correctly, then no, he thinks that @profile
should not affect data-* attributes.

Data-* interactions with @profile is not required for any existing
use-cases, and it is explicitly anti-recommended in the current HTML
draft as data-* attributes should only carry private semantics, not
publicly-shareable ones.  If you believe you have concrete use-cases
that show the contrary, please indicate them on the page and in the
manner that Tantek requested.  That will help ensure that maximum
consideration is given to the idea.

~TJ
Received on Sunday, 21 February 2010 15:27:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:02 GMT