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

Re: Possible *third* proposal for ISSUE-41 Distributed Extensibility

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:13:05 -0400
Message-ID: <4BB206F1.4080508@intertwingly.net>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: HTMLwg WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 03/30/2010 09:41 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> 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]

I write scripts all the time that parse HTML pages.  I write scripts all 
the time that produce HTML pages.  These scripts aren't written in 
JavaScript nor do they run in a browser, nor do does it make sense for 
the results need to be standardized.

At times I find it handy to have what I stated above "attributes that 
ARE intended for use by software that is independent of the site that 
uses the attributes".

Personally, I expect the prohibition against data-attributes being used 
by such software to be widely and willfully violated.

- Sam Ruby


> [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
Received on Tuesday, 30 March 2010 14:13:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:00 UTC