- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:59:13 -0700
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Aug 30, 2009, at 6:25 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Ian Hickson<ian@hixie.ch> wrote: >> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >>> >>> However, the name collision between markup attributes and IDL >>> attributes. The spec should make sure to qualify as "IDL >>> attribute" or >>> "markup attribute" wherever there is potential ambiguity. >> >> The terms I've used are "DOM attributes" and "content attributes". If >> there's a case where there is ambiguity and I haven't qualified the >> term, >> then please let me know. >> >> I've fixed the URL decomposition attributes so they are always >> referenced >> as DOM attributes. > > For what it's worth, I've always found "DOM attribute" and "content > attribute" to be very ambiguous terms. I'm sure they are well defined > in the spec, however just reading the spec I'd have to look them up > basically every time. > > The terms Maciej is proposing I think would be much more intuitive. I didn't mean to be picky about the names - I just didn't recall what terms the spec used at the moment of writing. But I do think my terms are less ambiguous than the current spec terms. After all, both kinds of attributes are "in the DOM" in some sense, and in some usages, "content" refers to the DOM. I'm not sure changing throughout would be worth the effort though. Regards, Maciej
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 01:59:57 UTC