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

Re: Decentralised extensibility idea (ISSUE-41)

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 06:56:19 +0100
To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Cc: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Philip J├Ągenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100117065619646583.d8f77139@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Aryeh Gregor, Sat, 16 Jan 2010 22:37:59 -0500:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Leif Halvard Silli:
>> Because applying a class, without the URI, is simpler than the MD
>> knee-jerks. Using MD as if it was a markup language spec is shoehorning
>> it. (Or can you show how to implement spellcheck="skip" with MD? An
>> even so: Any UA or editor still has to implement the MD spellcheck skip
>> - there is noting in MD which makes it automatically happen. )
> 
> I'd just use the existing standard spellcheck="false" attribute,

That's a different point. 

> personally.  But okay, suppose you have something that's not specced
> but is too light-weight for microdata, and you really want something
> more like an attribute.  Like let's say squizzle="foobar".  Then great
> -- make up a new attribute, and call it squizzle, and say it can have
> the value "foobar".  You can already do this, and it will work great.
> The spec guarantees that all UAs that don't recognize it will ignore
> it.  In fact, that's how many (if not most) existing HTML attributes
> arose!
> 
> Of course, it won't validate, but it shouldn't, after all -- it's a
> vendor-specific extension.  You have to get it in a spec for it to
> validate.

You know, if you think so, then you should work for removing @data-* 
from the spec. And don't forget @class either. Because both of them 
allows to sneak across the borderline without your attention.

>> Your definition of "applicable specification" is what? If I say that it
>> is applicable, then it is? Then what about validation?
> 
> It's applicable if the validator recognizes it as applicable, as far
> as I can tell.  If you have a validator maintained by a pro-standards
> group like the W3C, it would presumably only recognize things defined
> in actual open standards.  If you provide some way for any extensions
> to pass through validators without manual checking to verify that
> they're actually openly specified, then anyone can get their
> proprietary extension to validate.  This defeats one of the purposes
> of standards validators: to validate that a document can be processed
> using open standards.

All that can sneak through a validator with @profile can also sneak 
through it without @profile. @profile can not be used for blessing 
something that isn't already part of HTML5. @profile is not something 
which lets you invent your own HTML elements and attributes.
___
>> Few are those
>> that can develop their own validator. And even if they can, they cannot
>> get all third-parties and clients etc to use _their_ validator - and so
>> the extra attributes causes them to loose customer etc because they use
>> "invalid code".
> 
> As they should, if they refuse to create an open, well-conceived
> standard with multiple interoperable implementations.  If they can do
> that, on the other hand, the conventional validators won't mind adding
> them to the list of applicable standards.

@profile is for creating open, well-conceived standards. Microdata as 
well, btw. I have no clue how Microdata validation will work, but I 
thought - in addition to certain centrally kept vocabs - it was meant 
for individually developed vocabularies. Even the W3 and the WHATwg 
would not be powerful enough to keep track of all the "applicable" 
vocabularies that could be created for Microdata.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Sunday, 17 January 2010 05:56:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:12 UTC