- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:05:56 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:44:31 +0200, Richard Schwerdtfeger > <schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > Net: Due to special treatment of the hyphen and colon characters in IE > > we agreed that it would be best to focus on using underscore. Doug > > will be discussing this with the SVG working group. > > > > So, use aria_checked as opposed to aria-checked or aria:checked > > Internet Explorer doesn't treat the hyphen specially. I think the > argument was that it was better to avoid the hyphen because it is > already used in other attribute names (such as color-rendering). Wouldn't that be an argument in _favour_ of the hyphen? We want to have consistent naming, otherwise we'll have authors wondering "so wait, is this the attribute with the hyphen, or with the underscore?". In particular, HTML already has four different ways of mashing words together in attribute names: http-equiv charset useMap (traditional usage, though the attribute is really "usemap") xml:lang (when in XHTML) ...adding a fifth would make the language even more confusing, something that I'm really trying to avoid for HTML5 (I'm trying to standardise on the second form in the list above, though the first form is used for groups of related attributes like the repeat-* attributes in WF2, and would thus make sense for the aria-* group of attributes). Also the underscore looks really ugly. :-) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 22:06:10 UTC