- From: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
- Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 21:12:23 +0000
- To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Rob Sayre writes: > On 3/1/09 1:45 PM, Dan Brickley quoted the HTML 5 draf spec: > > > "Custom data attributes are intended to store custom data private > > to the page or application, for which there are no more appropriate > > attributes or elements. These attributes are not intended for use > > by software that is independent of the site that uses the > > attributes." > > Do you mean it won't work technically, or that it would be using the > attributes in a way that's unintended? RDFa already uses XML > Namespaces and HTML in ways that those specifications don't cover. > What's different about my example? If you're prepared to violate a spec, what's the advantage of an attribute called data-rdfa-foo over simply rdfa-foo? The former is trampling over a feature designed for a different purpose; the latter is minting a brand new attribute that's all your own to play with, which seems cleaner. An apparent advantage of the data- prefix would be that you can trick automated validators into lying to you and telling you that your source is valid. But it wouldn't be. And I don't see how being able to lie to yourself is an advantage. > However, unlike XMLNS, we could change the HTML5 text. Sure. But if we want to change the HTML 5 text to support RDFA, we can simply do that by adding in RDFA-specific attributes. Smylers
Received on Sunday, 1 March 2009 21:13:03 UTC