- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:41:04 +0300
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: HTMLwg WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mar 22, 2010, at 16:26, Sam Ruby wrote: > On 03/22/2010 09:52 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> On Mar 22, 2010, at 15:20, Sam Ruby wrote: >> >>> But as I said, that's rare, and not the primary use case (though I >>> understand the importance of probing the edge cases in discussions >>> such as these). As to the first question, longer answer here: >>> >>> http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/04/08/HTML-Reunification >> >> So the primary use case is Ubiquity-XForms? > > Sorry, I was unclear. My bad. > > I see the primary use case is the exactly one that is excluded by custom data attributes: specifically "attributes that ARE intended for use by software that is independent of the site that uses the attributes" What does that leave as the primary use case? (Your formulation seems to imply that you now have a primary use case in mind as opposed to the enabling "features without use cases"[1].) You already said that experimental browser features or browser extensions aren't the primary use case[2]. I was trying to think of cases where custom markup isn't consumed by a browser and isn't consumed by JavaScript running inside a browser. The case that I thought about first was search in general and enterprise search in particular, because Web search features at least should presumably be standardized. However, Microdata already addresses the search use case. Did you have the enterprise search use case in mind? What's left? Round-tripping the state of an HTML editor?[3] [1] http://intertwingly.net/blog/2007/08/02/HTML5-and-Distributed-Extensibility [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Mar/0511.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/att-1216/MicrosoftDistributedExtensibilitySubmission.htm -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Tuesday, 30 March 2010 13:41:39 UTC