- From: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 15:33:11 +1000
- To: public-html@w3.org
HTML attribute isn't bad. "Content attribute" is a bit vague.
Knowing where the spec is referring to the serialisation and when the
DOM is quite tricky; which has not been a problem in the past when the
HTML and DOM specs have been kept separate.
I don't mind merging the specs (especially if it helps implementors)
but clarity of language will be a challenge. "HTML attribute" and "DOM
attribute" seem simple choices to me.
On 8/5/07, Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 10:04:39PM -0500, Robert Burns wrote:
>
> > I think Sander's proposed language is by far the clearest ("must reflect
> > the datetime content attribute's value" might also work). I think the term
> > '"content attribute" just makes it harder to read. Perhaps markup attribute
> > would be better (though I know there are problems with that too). Language!
> > (shakes head).
>
> Perhaps "HTML attribute" would be better, as long as it is defined in the spec
> to include XHTML (otherwise, it may be construed as referring only to the HTML
> serialization).
>
>
Received on Sunday, 5 August 2007 05:33:14 UTC