- 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