W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2009

Re: ISSUE-41/ACTION-97 decentralized-extensibility

From: Krzysztof Maczyński <1981km@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:23:55 +0200
Message-ID: <1D0937134C3E43A7BC0B15D37B99A182@kmPC>
To: "Aryeh Gregor" <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Cc: <public-html@w3.org>
> On the other hand, I'm not clear what you mean by script libraries or
> editors.  Are you referring to packages in standard client-side
> formats such as JavaScript, which would like to store data in the DOM
> for their own purposes?  I think this is covered pretty well by the
> class attribute, data-*, and so on.  While it's true that making up
> your own elements would be kind of neat, it doesn't seem to give much
> practical benefit.  It's entirely possible I missed some use-cases in
> all the discussion -- what exactly would custom attributes/elements be
> useful for, from the perspective of JavaScript or similar
> technologies?  getElementByTagNameNS() was mentioned, but
> getElementsByClassName() should be just as fast, I'd think.
> If by script libraries and editors you mean non-standard extensions --
> like browser plug-ins, Flash, etc. -- then I think it's entirely
> correct that markup to support them shouldn't validate.  Validation is
> a sign that your content is standards-compliant, which it isn't if it
> contains non-standard content.
Your differentiation based on this between scripts and browser extensions doesn't seem valid to me. Both could use @class (and some indeed do with current HTML, often unfortunately) or elements in another namespace. So your point would have to be taken equally against arbitrary @class as arbitrarily namespaced elements.

Best regards,

Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 09:24:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:53 UTC