- From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:02:41 -0400
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote: > It seems to me to be on the edge of what @data-*'s specified purpose to > distribute a software package that requires that you use a specific and - to > use Aryeh' wording - "non-standard" attribute. The use of non-standard attributes is okay as long as the tools needed to process them are provided along with the document in a standard format (say in a JavaScript library). That way, the document as a whole (including any libraries, etc.) can be processed using purely standard tools. This gives all the benefits of standardization: competition between vendors resulting in better product quality, support on all platforms and not just those that one vendor happens to like, etc. HTML5 allows the creation of data-* attributes to cover this kind of use-case. On the other hand, if the library requires nonstandard technologies like Flash or Silverlight, everyone who wants to use it is forced to use a specific program controlled by a single vendor. This means that the document will only work on the platforms that vendor chooses to support; might require payment of some kind to use now or in the future; and might stop working entirely if the vendor goes out of business. Moreover, the tool is more likely to be poor quality because of lack of competition. So in other words, data-* is "nonstandard" in the same sense as the actual contents of your page are nonstandard -- technically it is, of course, but it's not what standardization is supposed to be targeted at in the first place. As long as the document as a whole can be processed based purely on standards, there's probably no problem. Of course, there are oodles of extremely debatable corner cases, if you want to be creative, but I hope you get the gist of the distinction I'm making here. > It ought in my view to be > good practice offer a simple way to change the name of the data-* attribute > when it is included in distributions. It also seems like a good practice to > recommend the use of an extra prefix, such as you suggested: data-svgweb-*. This seems like a good suggestion to have in the spec.
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 23:03:16 UTC