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

RE: ISSUE-41: Creating a JavaScript DataGrid Widget

From: Tony Ross <tross@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 00:16:45 +0000
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: "Ennals, Robert (robert.ennals@intel.com)" <robert.ennals@intel.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0BE6C9F65034784C8E2852B6F303DA173B53ABF8@TK5EX14MBXC112.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
On Monday, May 03, 2010 4:43 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Tony Ross <tross@microsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> 
> I guess I was a bit over dramatic with "overhaul the language" :). It doesn't
> mean any changes to implementations, but it does change a lot of other
> aspects. It does change what is "valid HTML" (though the usefulness of that
> term is debatable), and it does change logistics in that now HTML is run
> through a registry in addition to a working group. And it also creates the
> problem you mentioned earlier of people rushing to register short prefixes,
> not to mention that we'll probably end up loosing good names to defunct
> projects and companies.

What do you think about supporting the syntax without requiring the registry?

> > The distinction is between attributes defined by a library author and
> > attributes defined by the page author.
> 
> Though arguably the data-foo-bar vs. data-bar distinction does that already.
> At least if people play nice. And if people don't play nice there is nothing
> preventing page authors using attributes named asp-backgroundcolor.

True, but at least they had to choose a prefix with the non-"data-" scheme.
And they potentially ended up with a shorter attribute name at the same time.
With "data-" alone, trying to keep names short makes "no prefix" highly desirable.

> > > > 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.
> 
> I think we should do this apart from any of the decentralized extensibility
> issue entirely. The spec already recommends libraries on how they should
> use data attributes. Seems like it could go in as part of that.

I'm ok with that so long as other proposals preserve the recommendation.

-Tony
Received on Tuesday, 4 May 2010 00:17:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:02 UTC