W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2011

Re: minutes for HTML WG f2f, 2011-11-04, part 1

From: Peter Winnberg <peter.winnberg@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 09:46:08 +0100
Message-ID: <CAG21KW=MfFF3nppQfSMPJevxMcddCMkGp205bBUPC1rHyy0dsw@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-html@w3.org
2011/11/6 Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>:
> I will note that there is one concern that has been identified with the
> definition of the data element as currently specified:
>
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13240#c72
>
> See the last paragraph in that comment.  Given the sentiment in the room in
> the F2F, if that concern can be addressed and no other concerns are voiced,
> it occurs to me that we could move this forward quickly with a Call for
> Consensus.  Should anybody object, we would give those who do an opportunity
> to produce counter proposals.

The problem that I have with the data element is that I have not seen
anyone explain is why the data element would be a superior solution to
say:

<span value="machine-readable data here">Data here</span>

Why is the data element needed when it seems to have the same
semantics as span? If I see some convincing examples of why this is
needed I might redraw my objections to it. Otherwise yes, it is likely
that I would do a counter proposal.

The way I see it, only a attribute is needed to hold the
machine-readable data, and this attribute could perhaps be used on
other elements as well (time?). If something like that would be done
instead, and not add a new element and just an attribute, there are of
course other things to consider, what should that attribute be named,
and how can it be specified so that microdata/microformats/RDFa could
take advantage of it.
Received on Sunday, 6 November 2011 11:28:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:28 UTC