- From: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:31:06 +1000
- To: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
3.4.1. id attribute http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#id This section says the id must contain at least one character, but doesn't specify any limitations on that character. I thought it was invalid to have things like id="1" and id="$" I'm used to following the HTML 4.01 rules: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-id - is HTML 5 different? What are valid id values? 3.4.2. title attributes http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#title "on an image ... it could be a description of the image" I believe this has already been discussed on this list, but there is a discrepancy between the use of img@alt and img@title. However that is resolved, it may need to be reflected in the document here. I would consider removing "it could be a description of the image" to avoid needless contention. 3.4.3. The lang (HTML only) and xml:lang (XML only) attributes http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#lang Disappointed that this explicitly requires different attributes for each serialisation (but can't offer a solution). 3.4.5. class attribute http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#class I tracked back through "unordered set of space-separated tokens" to discover that class names must be "words" but couldn't find the definition of what was a valid "word". Similar to 3.4.1. (id) I think there are possibly constraints around tokens? (This information may very well be in the spec, there just might need to be a link from these sections so it can be easily found.) 3.4.6. irrelevant attribute Got a few tangential comments after reading this. Boolean attributes: in XHTML authors would use irrelevant="irrelevant" and in the DOM irrelevant = true; (I think some may mistakenly use irrelevant = 'irrelevant'; but that probably works anyway). I think the second example (replace a still frame with a video once loading is confirmed) is so useful it would be nice to have an easier way to specify it with markup. Could we do something with multiple source elements perhaps? <video> <source src="frame.png"> <source src="video.ogg"> <img src="frame.png"> </video> In both examples, I don't understand the benefit of @irrelevant when one could just use the replaceChild() method from the DOM. What's the benefit of @irrelevant over DOM manipulation? Is there any way to manipulate the irrelevant attribute other than by scripting (that could potentially be a benefit).
Received on Monday, 30 July 2007 12:31:28 UTC