- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 08:55:19 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Mon, 11 May 2009, Sam Ruby wrote: > > It also appears that Ben's objection could be addressed by simply picking a > name other than 'property' for that particular attribute. Indeed. At the risk of starting a permathread, if anyone has any suggestions of a name that's better than "property", please do suggest it. So far, the only suggestion has been "key", which isn't really better than property="". I think it would do more harm to HTML to have a bad attribute name here than it would to RDFa for the attribute to be the same (there is actually no conflict as the spec is written now, it's only if RDFa starts extending into new fields, e.g. prefix-less identifiers, that there would actually be a serious problem). > All other features in HTML5 have varying degrees of implementation and > deployment experience. At the moment, Ian's proposal appears to be > speculative - as in "seems like it would work". I would hope to see a > similar level of deployment effort for this proposal before we make a > final determination as to whether or not it makes the cut for Last Call. On this front, and much to my surprise, James and Philip have already independently written sample demo implementations: http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-May/019682.html http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-May/019686.html Not bad for a proposal that's less than 24 hours old! -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 11 May 2009 08:54:50 UTC