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

[Bug 8871] Empty attribute syntax definition seems incorrect.

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 00:36:27 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1NidKd-000691-2V@wiggum.w3.org>

Toby Inkster <mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|WONTFIX                     |

--- Comment #2 from Toby Inkster <mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>  2010-02-20 00:36:26 ---
(In reply to comment #1)

> Changing it to "All attributes may be specified by providing just the attribute
> name" would not be correct, because using the empty-attribute syntax with many
> (or even most) attributes is a conformance error -- because the values of the
> attributes must conform to a specific datatype/microsyntax. So the HTML5 spec
> does in fact place limits on which attributes can use the empty-attribute
> syntax.

The some/all quantifier is not needed: "Attributes may be specified by
providing just the attribute name." If further clarification is needed: "This
sets the attribute value to the empty string, so is a conformance error if the
empty string is not a valid value for the attribute."

> And the per-element subsections of "HTML elements" section of the H:TML draft
> indicate explicitly which attributes can be empty.

It does for some allowably empty attributes, but not all.

e.g. @href, @rel and @ping may all be empty on the <a> element, so the
following is conformant:

  <a href rel ping>Foo</a>

But the language in the H:TML draft appears to forbid this.

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 20 February 2010 00:36:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:11 UTC