- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:51:58 +0100
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Cc: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Philip Jägenstedt, Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:05:09 +0100: > On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:13:43 +0100, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote: > >> Philip Jägenstedt wrote: >> >>> I don't think this is a very good idea, as data-* are always hidden >>> and not suitable for marking up content that is visible in the page. >> >> You are mistaking my proposal for a method of embedding data into a >> document. The proposal is not intended for embedding the kind of data >> that Microdata or RDFa embed; rather it's a general purpose extension >> point that other standards ("otherspecs") could use. > > Yes, I did assume as much from the examples, but in fact I think they > are effectively the same thing. Same thing? How? > Only user agents can change the behavior of any element/attribute in > other ways than what is already possible using JavaScript and CSS. If > you are a user agent (especially a browser) then I would argue that > you *shouldn't* be making stuff up, you should make a > proof-of-concept and then propose the feature for standardization as > a proper HTML feature. Centralization here is a good thing, because > it makes vendors talk to each other and improve the feature before it > is too late. > > If, on the other hand, you are not a user agent, then the only thing > you can do is embed data and make any behavior/rendering with > JavaScript/CSS. For embedding the data/hooks you need you can use > data-* attributes, clasa attributes, microdata or whatever you want. Jonas has meant that D.E. could be handled by MD. As such, it would be possible to (mis)use MD as a "general purpose extension". By your logic then, we should not have MD, as it allows non-UA vendors to "avoid" the W3 centralisation. It seems like the WG needs to decide whether at all there should be any way for non-UA vendors to decide/define how HTML should interpreted ... ? Aren't you simply not in tune with the charter here? Authors can use "data-* attributes, clasa attributes, microdata or whatever you want" - but not @profile? Give me a break. A powerful vendor like Google already use data-* for their "SVG-via-Flash" solution. It is just naïve to not realize that they are effectively defining a profile? -- leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 15 January 2010 17:52:32 UTC