- From: Steven Roussey <sroussey@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 14:36:48 -0700
- To: Tony Ross <tross@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
> <table id="productOrders"> > <thead> > <tr> > <th > data-myajaxlibrary-sort="desc" > data-myajaxlibrary-datatype="currency" > data-myajaxlibrary-hidden="false">Name</th> > </tr> > ... > > And then use JavaScript like the following to create the DataGrid: > > var dataGrid = new DataGrid("#productOrders"); > > The trouble with using an attribute like "data-myajaxlibrary-datatype" is: > > 1) The attribute name requires a lot of typing (realize that you need > to repeat these attributes for each table column). > 2) There is no guarantee that there won't be a conflict with attribute > names used by another widget. For example, multiple JavaScript > frameworks would be tempted to use the attribute names like > data-datagrid or data-widget- datagrid. The first example of a data attribute is data-myajaxlibrary-sort, which seems in conflict with the example data-datagrid. Would the trouble in #2 not be about data-myajaxlibrary-datagrid? (Perhaps an example like data-ms-asp4-datagrid would be more concrete.) Assuming so, I don't see how such potential markup conflict is that much different from global variable name conflicts in JavaScript. While out of scope here, it seems that support for a registry of prefixes is to support a registry for the JS globals counterparts (which, for simplicity, ought to be the same). >From my experience, I've seen people get out of each other's way over time in the JS library world, and I would expect the same here. -steve--
Received on Monday, 3 May 2010 21:37:41 UTC