W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > August 2007

Re: HTML.Reserved - additional checking? datapagesize, event, for

From: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 16:14:31 +0100 (BST)
To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Cc: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>, QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708031608540.6267@holly>
If I remember correctly the intention was as described in the 
comment, i.e. to reserve the datasrc and datafld attribute names 
with a view to possibly including them along with data binding in a 
future version of HTML. Documents using them aren't valid HTML4. 
As Ian suggests, this was some kind of compromise agreement with 
Microsoft over IE's databinding feature, as Microsoft was unable to 
convince other HTML WG participants to go along with the feature as 
part of HTML4. We could check the email archive, but that would be 
rather time consuming.

  Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:

> On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 09:44 +0900, Karl Dubost wrote:
>> Adding dave ragget and Ian Jacobs, editors of HTML 4.01
>> About this thread
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qa-dev/2007Aug/0003
>>
>> Le 2 août 2007 à 09:29, olivier Thereaux a écrit :
>>> If they shouldn't be used, why are they listed in the DTD?
>>
>> I think given the documentation found online. It was used by
>> microsoft IE. So I suspect that they didn't have support from the
>> rest of the group at this time, but that it could be a good idea.
>>
>>> Why are some of these reserved attributes in an "IGNORE" section
>>> and others in the list of acceptable attributes for certain elements.
>>> Why are these reserved attributes not mentioned in the prose?
>>
>> I added Ian and Dave for having clarifications, if they remember.
>
> I don't remember anything about this in particular. Sorry...
>
> _ Ian
>
>>> I think it's a little futile to think of fixing the tools before we
>>> know for sure why the spec doesn't seem to agree with itself...
>>
>> note in my mail ;) I didn't say we must fix the tool. I said in the
>> topic, "additional checking?"
>> I'm as surprised as you may be, and not sure about what we should do,
>> yet, on this matter.
>>
> -- 
> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
>
Received on Friday, 3 August 2007 15:13:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 19 August 2010 18:12:48 GMT