Re: [WF2] new attributes that often conflict with actual pages

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:06:44 +0100, Laurens Holst  
<> wrote:

>> I've seen these new attributes cause problems for real-life websites.
>> I think we shold discuss re-naming them to make conflicts with
>> existing content less likely:
> Just for the sake of clarity: are you talking about XML attributes or
> DOM properties here?

DOM properties, sorry. I have snipped away some comments that were  
relevant to XML attributes only.

>> INPUT action
>>  - breaks web applications frequently. Both GMail and Yahoo mail (the
>> new Oddpost-based version) use input/button.action and were seriously
>> broken by WF2's action attribute.
>> I propose renaming it "actionurl".
> And still there are people who claim that namespaces and XHTML are
> useless :).

I would not claim such a thing but I think the namespaces spec is too  
complicated, making it hard to author for.

>> SELECT data
>> FORM data
>> These break
>> a) scripts that set them, read them back and are confused because they
>> turned into resolved URLs
> I think changing XML attribute values when they’re set is very bad
> practice (and impossible to implement properly in a standard DOM). It
> might in some instances be necessary for ‘compatibility with the web’
> (aka IE), but IMO should be avoided otherwise.

Yes. This is about properties.

> However, I did see that the DOM ‘data’ property does not explicitly
> state that it should be a resolved absolute value [1]. I think this
> should happen, similar to similar DOM properties such as a
> HTMLFormElement.action [2] (note: does not explicitly state it either,
> but browser do implement it this way), HTMLAnchorElement.href [3] (does
> explicitly state it must return an absolute uri), etc..

Yes, this should be clarified.

> Can I get an acknowledgement that these comments are noted by the editor?
>> b) scripts that define global functions called data and try to call
>> them with a SELECT or FORM element in scope (for example from event
>> handlers)
>> I propose renaming it "dataurl"
> But all in all, I’d say that the cases you are citing contain very
> sloppy code, and deserve to break. It seems obvious that adding such
> obvious custom attributes without prepending a prefix of some kind is a
> compatibility problem just waiting to happen. I am not in favour of
> renaming these attributes and properties for the sake of those sites.

Problem is that pointing fingers doesn't contribute much to achieving  
compatibility with the Web.

Hallvord R. M. Steen
Core QA JavaScript tester, Opera Software
Opera - simply the best Internet experience

Received on Friday, 18 January 2008 14:26:54 UTC