W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Re: no change proposal for ISSUE-55, but a new plan for @profile

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 22:05:03 +0100
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, tantek@cs.stanford.edu, Krzysztof MaczyƄski <1981km@gmail.com>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100221220503760701.d2010034@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Tab Atkins Jr., Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:26:46 -0600:
> 2010/2/21 Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>:
>> Julian Reschke, Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:52:27 +0100:
>>> On 21.02.2010 09:42, Tantek Celik wrote:
>>>> In short, nothing for meta name (invisible data antipattern), and
>>>> nothing for data-* which is not intended for use as shared
>>>> vocabulary (as far as I can tell from reading the spec).
>>> ...which *does* mean that meta/@name needs to be included.
>>> I understand the antipattern argument, but that's orthogonal to the
>>> definition of @profile.
>>> I agree with the part about data-*.
>> So then we are at least two persons that think data-* *should* be
>> included.
> If I'm reading Julian correctly, then no, he thinks that @profile
> should not affect data-* attributes.

(Sorry, meant Toby.)
> Data-* interactions with @profile is not required for any existing
> use-cases, and it is explicitly anti-recommended in the current HTML
> draft as data-* attributes should only carry private semantics, not
> publicly-shareable ones.

I don't see why the spec's space ship element example, with its related 
data-* attributes,  _has_ to be private (whatever "private" means). 
That example works exactly like I imagine: A certain class name 
together with a specific element, represents the "space ship element". 
And the "space ship element" in turn has some required/optional data-* 

>  If you believe you have concrete use-cases
> that show the contrary, please indicate them on the page and in the
> manner that Tantek requested.  That will help ensure that maximum
> consideration is given to the idea.

Will add it (unless someone comes before me.)  We might not be as much 
in disagreement that it seems though:

I also think that ARIA/@role belongs together with @profile. Not that a 
profile can be used to invent aria values. But @profile can be used to 
specify classes - aka "elements" - that in turn requires/recommends 
specific aria values. The same goes for data-*: It might not be a good 
idea to specify that the presence of a particular profile means that 
data-myattr="" has a certain meaning. But it is IMHO another thing to 
say that @data-myattr="" has a specific meaning inside <span 
profile="http://my.example.com" class="my-class" data-myattr="value">.

So, yes, @data-* should be in scope, but only subsequently.
leif halvard silli
Received on Sunday, 21 February 2010 21:05:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:58 UTC