- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 00:06:25 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12148 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC| |ian@hixie.ch Resolution| |WONTFIX --- Comment #10 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2011-05-05 00:06:25 UTC --- EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: I agree that the current design is poor. This is actually why I encourage the use of value-less boolean attributes (<input disabled> rather than <input disabled=something>). However, changing it is a non-starter. It would be an absolutely huge change to the specification and to implementations — the sheer number of places that test for attribute presence that would need to change to test for attribute value is simply phenomenal. It would be a very high-risk change, since it's quite likely that there are pages that accidentally say things like checked=false but mean it to be checked. It would lead to several years of pain for millions of authors, as browsers slowly migrate from one behaviour to another. It would mean massive efforts updating HTML documentation, books, tutorials, etc, the world over. -- 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 Thursday, 5 May 2011 00:06:31 UTC