Re: Alternate syntax for defining class attribute

Technically the ability to have whitespace before the tag name was always
implied in your proposal.  Since "." marked the beginning of a new keyword,
it would become a breaking character.  Therefore there would be no
difference between

<foo.bar> or <foo .bar> or <foo         .bar>

A well formed parser (at least in the traditional Dragon Book sense) would
stop at the period anyway.  I can't speak to how the existing parsers DO
handle this, and am a bit to lazy on this sat AM to run some tests.

So definitely update your proposal to include that whitespace may be there,
for clarity's sake if nothing else, but it is implied already
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 3:52 AM, T.J. Crowder <tj@crowdersoftware.com>wrote:

> Julian,
>
> > > For one thing, we're after last call, aren't we?
> > No, we aren't.
>
> Thanks. Sorry, that was very sloppy terminology on my part, obviously there
> are still a number of outstanding bugs/issues (per section 3 of the last
> status report, "Getting to Last Call").
>
> I should have said, or indeed asked, are we past last call for *new*
> proposals?
>
> Apologies, I'm sure this is documented somewhere. I kicked around the
> working group pages but I'm still relatively new to the working group's page
> structure (and terminology).
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- T.J.
>
>
>
> On 10 April 2010 11:15, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> On 10.04.2010 09:51, T.J. Crowder wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Thanks again, all, for the comments.
>>>
>>> First off, there's no question in my mind that this proposal will not be
>>> part of HTML5. For one thing, we're after last call, aren't we? Even if
>>>
>>
>> No, we aren't.
>>
>>  ...
>>>
>>
>> Best regards, Julian
>>
>
>


-- 
Jock Murphy
Founder
www.stufflabs.com