W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-bidi@w3.org > July to September 2010

RE: HTML attribute with no value

From: CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:36:40 -0400
Message-ID: <SNT142-w417428DA5E10EB1A3C4E7BB37E0@phx.gbl>
To: <aharon@google.com>, <ntounsi@emi.ac.ma>
CC: <public-i18n-bidi@w3.org>


Hi.
________________________________
> From: aharon@google.com
> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 05:50:19 +0200
> To: ntounsi@emi.ac.ma
> CC: tabatkins@google.com; public-i18n-bidi@w3.org
> Subject: Re: HTML attribute with no value
>
>> I would prefer ubi as boolean attribute.
>> equivalent to (or "on" (or "true")),
>> otherwise, it is "off" (or "false").
>
> ubi can not be a boolean attribute in the exact same sense that
> selected is, since selected does not have an explicit false value. If
> it's omitted, its false. For ubi, we want an explicit false value
> because there are cases when it is true by default. Thus, the "off"
> value, which no real boolean attribute has.
>
> Nevertheless, it is certainly our intention that should
> be equivalent to (or whatever we want to call the true
> value). The question is how exactly to formally define ubi in order to
> achieve that, and whether the true value implied by giving the
> attribute with no value has to be "ubi", or can be the more meaningful
> "on".
>
> Aharon
>


Hi, and sorry for my delayed response.
I hope also for something close to a boolean value (ubi=yes or on or whatever, ubi=no, default might be specified with an empty string; whatever works for html 5).



(I also have a few other comments and some minor and almost unecessary proofreading comments for sections 1 and 2 which I am sending separately; will get to section 3 eventually;
best wishes to all of you and let me know if there is anything I can do for the draft besides proofread section 3 as I am doing o.k. for now . . . much better than I was.)
Thanks,
Best,
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar@hotmail.com
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Najib Tounsi
>> wrote:
> Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin wrote:
> In the f2f, we said:
>
> ubi syntax is ubi=”ubi”|””|”off”. The “ubi” and empty string values
> are equivalent, and mean that bidi isolation is on for the element.
>
>
> I am confused about why we needed two values meaning "on", and if so,
> why neither one of them is named "on".
>
> +1
>
>
>
> The crux of my question is what, exactly, does the HTML spec say
> about an attributes with no value, e.g. ? Is it always
> equivalent to , or to , or something else?
>
>
> I would prefer ubi as boolean attribute. equivalent to> ubi="ubi"> (or "on" (or "true")), otherwise, it is "off" (or "false").
>
> It seems that HTML 4.0 permit this.
>
> Najib
>
>
> If is equivalent to , I do not see why we
> need an empty string value.
>
> If, on the other hand, is equivalent to , I
> understand why we need an empty value as well as an equivalent
> non-empty value, but I do not understand why the latter has to be the
> meaningless "ubi". I would prefer ubi=”on”|””|”off”.
>
> Aharon
>
>
>
> 		 	   		  
Received on Monday, 20 September 2010 20:37:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 September 2010 20:37:14 GMT