- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 02:30:30 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, 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. "IDL attribute" seems reasonable. I've changed "DOM attribute" to "IDL attribute" in the specs I maintain. "markup attribute" implies that the attribute has some relationship with the markup, but they are equally as much what you get to using getAttribute() and setAttribute(). (That's one reason I think changing DOM attribute to IDL attribute is a good idea; the content attributes are as much "markup attributes" as they are "DOm attributes".) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 02:28:41 UTC