- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 03:50:47 +0200
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Toby Inkster On 09-09-09 23.40: > I like this idea. [...] > Specialising it using an attribute seems preferable to creating a > different element for each usage. I'd suggest not using @type though > because its syntax would conflict with the attribute of the same name > on <a>, <link>, <script>, <object>, etc. It fits with how @type is used for the <input> element. And with HTML 4's <ol type="A"> and <ul type="square">. > Possibly @role could be re-used. (@role isn't just an ARIA attribute, > it's intended to be used in other ways too.) e.g. > > <dl role="property-list"> > <dt>Name:</dt> > <dd>Toby Inkster</dd> > <dt>Date of birth:</dt> > <dd>1980-06-01</dd> > </dl> Interesting example - and there are many more. > A role of "glossary" or something would be the default if no > contradictory roles (like "dialog", "timeline" or "property-list") > were found. @type seems to be closer linked to the very element, though. <dl type="property-list> stands for "a DL list of the property list type". Whereas @role means "a DL list that has the role of propety list". However, I would be fine with role. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 10 September 2009 01:51:29 UTC