RE: ISSUE-41: Creating a JavaScript DataGrid Widget

On Monday, May 03, 2010 11:51 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: 
> It sounds to me like the problems you are bringing up are exactly the same
> ones as there are with data-*. I.e. it doesn't seem like moving to the Y
> proposal solves or adds any problems, it just moves the same ones around.
> The only difference is that with Robs proposal you've removed the "data-"
> prefix, but all other problems remain.

I should have been more clear. There are a few improvements the ASP.NET team liked:
1) Shorter attribute names (5 fewer characters per attribute)
2) Clear separation between extended attributes and custom attributes added by the page author
3) Requirement to use some sort of a prefix so libraries don't compete for un-prefixed attribute names

> So far I haven't heard of any good bullet proof namespacing mechanisms.
> Either you end up with a registry where everyone fights over the good
> names and you end up problems like unregistered uses and x-not-so-
> temporary names. Or you end up with collision proof names which are way
> too long and end up with painful mechanisms to try to shorten them (xmlns,

> What I prefer is a best effort solution. I.e. libraries and people do their best
> to avoid collisions. When collisions happen they will rarely end up being used
> at the same set of pages. And in the cases when they do end up in the same
> set of pages, people can deal. For example if two JS libraries become popular
> but started out using the same prefix, one of them can change. Or they can
> make the prefix configurable.

I'm fine with putting the burden of conflict-resolution on the library itself.
Perhaps we can add text encouraging libraries to make their prefixes configurable.


Received on Monday, 3 May 2010 22:26:54 UTC