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.

Received on Sunday, 21 February 2010 15:27:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:58 UTC