W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > October to December 2016

RE: bikeshed fatal error on 'interface' dfn using 'for' attribute

From: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 01:50:31 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: "Hodges, Jeff" <jeff.hodges@paypal.com>, "spec-prod@w3.org" <spec-prod@w3.org>, Arron Eicholz <arronei@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <BLUPR0301MB2113E01B76346ED15984D562F8BB0@BLUPR0301MB2113.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
>Elements are specifically marked in Bikeshed as *not* using the `for` attribute currently (thus the error).  What's your use-case for giving them one?

We have a few element name collisions that need resolving. For example HTML's <title> vs. SVG <title>. Also, we have the picture element's <source> element and the media element's <source> element which need to reference different parts of the doc...


-----Original Message-----
From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 5:32 PM
To: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
Cc: Hodges, Jeff <jeff.hodges@paypal.com>; spec-prod@w3.org; Arron Eicholz <arronei@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: bikeshed fatal error on 'interface' dfn using 'for' attribute

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Funny, this hit the W3C HTML spec as well. My case was: 
> https://github.com/travisleithead/html/commit/b59f37a5056dfa1875328d42

> 8bcc1ca49d198f53#diff-eb18865acfd94500fe999f8128227ed6
>  (in response to https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/707)
>
> Where an ancestor dfn-for='....' was inheriting down to a <dfn element>...<dfn>. However, it _is_ legitimate for an element to have a for attribute, so I don't see the problem? In the above commit, I fix the issue by moving the ancestor definition to locally-needed terms, but I don't think I should have to do that...

Elements are specifically marked in Bikeshed as *not* using the `for` attribute currently (thus the error).  What's your use-case for giving them one?

~TJ
Received on Friday, 11 November 2016 01:51:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 11 November 2016 01:51:09 UTC