- From: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 08:23:57 +0000
- To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Rob Sayre writes: > On 3/1/09 4:12 PM, Smylers wrote: > > > The former is trampling over a feature designed for a different > > purpose; > > Calling it trampling is a bit melodramatic. data- is ostensibly for > private use. It _is_ for private use, as currently defined. > > the latter is minting a brand new attribute that's all your own to > > play with, which seems cleaner. > > I wouldn't call anything about the RDFa design clean. No comment on that. But I meant cleaner from HTML's point of view -- separate attributes for separate things, where data-* is for site-specific stuff that author has made up and the well-known RDFA has its own. That makes it easier for authors to see what's what, easier for RDFA consumers to see what they have to parse, and easier for teachers to teach the purpose of each attribute -- especially if they wish to teach private attributes without mentioning RDFA, or _vice versa_. (And it avoids the risk of the Retired Divorced Female's Association[*1] minting a data-* attribute which clashes.) Why do you think it's preferably to commingle these things? > > > 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. > > I don't think you'll get consensus to do that, If the consensus is to support RDFA , then why do you believe the working group would be against providing syntax for it? (Of course if the consensus isn't to support RDFA then your suggested change to expand the scope of data-* to support it will be unnecessary. Having consenus for the semantics of RDFA but not for providing syntax, any syntax, seems peculiar.) Smylers [*1] www.rdfa.org -- their choice of where the apostrophe goes.
Received on Monday, 2 March 2009 08:24:49 UTC