- From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:16:26 -0500
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote: > Here are some use cases, where currently XML-style namespaces, or > proprietary extensions to HTML might be used, that might instead be > solved using my proposal: > > * a WYSIWYG editor wishes to use a special attribute to note > that certain parts of a document should be skipped by the > spell check function. Rather than adding a proprietary > attribute or using namespaces, they'd just add something > like data-spellcheck="skip" to those elements, with a > profile attribute allowing that particular data-* > attribute to have a globally-defined meaning. > > * A phone company introduces a revolutionary new multi-head > browser, designed for use on dual-screen phones. Pages are > generally viewed on the primary screen, but the documents > can specify certain sections which are intended for the > second screen. Rather than introduce a proprietary element, > they suggest a class+profile combination to indicate which > element(s) go on the second screen. 1) Why can't you use Microdata for both of those just as easily? 2) Why shouldn't these vendors be forced to go through the standardization process like everyone else if they want documents containing their feature to be valid HTML? If the feature is not openly specified, it will only work with some UAs, and arguably has a higher chance of being poorly considered. As soon as there's a formal specification of a feature, and anyone wants to implement it, it's an "applicable specification" and can simply add new attributes if it pleases.
Received on Friday, 15 January 2010 19:17:00 UTC