[Bug 7051] New: add new extended attribute to IDLs with DOM attributes that reflect content attributes

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7051

           Summary: add new extended attribute to IDLs with DOM attributes
                    that reflect content attributes
           Product: HTML WG
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: PC
               URL: https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2009-
                    June/008457.html
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Spec proposals
        AssignedTo: dave.null@w3.org
        ReportedBy: mike@w3.org
         QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
                CC: ian@hixie.ch, mike@w3.org, public-html@w3.org


There are currently several dozen instances of requirements stated in the spec
prose in the form "The foo DOM attribute must reflect the foo content
attribute."

For their internal IDLs, the WebKit development team is adding a "[Reflect]"
annotation (more precisely, what WebIDL calls an "extended attribute") to each
instance of declaration of a DOM attribute for which the HTML spec requires
reflection of a content attribute. For details, see this message:

  https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2009-June/008457.html

It might be worthwhile to consider using such an extended attribute in those
corresponding IDLs within the HTML5 spec itself. The WebIDL spec makes it clear
that use of such not-in-the-WebIDL-spec-itself extended attributes is OK:

  http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#extensibility

[[
Extensions to language binding requirements can be specified using extended
attributes that do not conflict with those defined in this document.
]]

So the HTML5 spec could internally define (e.g., somewhere in the "Reflecting
content attributes in DOM attributes" section) what it means by its use of the
[Reflect] extended attribute (or whatever other name might be used instead).

If it's added, we can just try to let other groups (e.g., SVG WG) know about
it, so that if they end up finding similar utility for such an attribute, we
can have consistent naming across different specs -- or I suppose if we really
wanted to, we could publish a short Note for it. If we did that, I guess it
would probably be most appropriate to have the WebApps WG publish that.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 10:14:15 UTC