Re: URL decomposition attributes on <a>, confusingness of references

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Ian Hickson<> 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       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 02:28:41 UTC