- From: Tony Ross <tross@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 23:20:13 +0000
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Ennals, Robert (robert.ennals@intel.com)" <robert.ennals@intel.com>
- CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Monday, May 03, 2010 3:36 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Tony Ross <tross@microsoft.com> wrote: > > 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) > > I do feel the pain here, though it doesn't seem like enough of a problem to > overhaul the language the way that many (all?) of the "distributed > extensibility" proposals do. > > I suppose it's too late to change "data-" to "d-"... I agree with not wanting to overhaul the language. Really I'm just looking to let something like the following validate: <th asp-sort="desc"> This should require zero changes to the parsing algorithm and resulting DOM. Unless I misunderstood, this is what Rob's proposal Y enables. > > 2) Clear separation between extended attributes and custom attributes > > added by the page author > > I'm not sure I understand the distinction. Is the distinction attributes defined > by the UA vendor, vs. attributes defined by the page author? Or between > attributes defined by a library author and attributes defined by the page > author? Or something else? The distinction is between attributes defined by a library author and attributes defined by the page author. > > 3) Requirement to use some sort of a prefix so libraries don't compete > > for un-prefixed attribute names > > Again, I'm not sure I understand this. It seems like basically all proposals use > some sort of prefix. Some shorter and registry protected, some longer and > uses collapsing mechanism (xmlns, CURIE) to turn them to a shorter prefix. The comparison is to "data-" as opposed to other proposed solutions to ISSUE-41. For example, with "data-" I can easily get the following to validate: <th data-sort="desc"> But now I haven't provided a prefix to distinguish my attributes from other libraries. This is also tempting to do since it helps obtain a shorter attribute name. > > > 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. > > That sounds like a good idea to me. > Great. Does anyone disagree with this? If not, I think this point would be good to include in Rob's proposal Y. -Tony
Received on Monday, 3 May 2010 23:20:50 UTC