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

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Ian Hickson<> wrote:
> 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".)

Makes sense. I still think the term "content attribute" is somewhat
non-descriptive, but I unfortunately can't think of anything better.

/ Jonas

Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 02:54:16 UTC