- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 06:41:55 -0800
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 2:05 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote: > On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 09:46:08 +0100, Peter Winnberg > <peter.winnberg@gmail.com> wrote: >> The way I see it, only a attribute is needed to hold the >> machine-readable data, and this attribute could perhaps be used on >> other elements as well (time?). If something like that would be done >> instead, and not add a new element and just an attribute, there are of >> course other things to consider, what should that attribute be named, >> and how can it be specified so that microdata/microformats/RDFa could >> take advantage of it. > > The main problem with a global attribute is that it would make it less clear > which attribute takes precedence and whether or not the value is resolved as > a URL, as previously discussed. [1][2] Further, what would the global > attribute be? value="" already exists with different semantics on <button>, > <option>, <input>, <li>, <meter>, <progress> and <param>. content="" is not > an option since RDFa uses it (in the early days microdata had both a > property="" and an about="" attribute and there were objections to this). > > [1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13240#c17 > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Oct/0166.html Indeed. Microdata already has the problem that the value of a given itemprop can be three different things, depending on the element and its attributes - either the text contents (for most elements), the contents of a particular attribute (for <a>, <meta>, etc.), or the Microdata item rooted at that element (for elements with @itemscope on them as well). These currently have a minor advantage in that there's a somewhat sensical "specificity" argument about them - the attribute beats the specific tags beats the general tag. Adding a fourth behavior that can apply to any element, and which doesn't have a clear place from a specificity perspective, would be rather confusing. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2011 14:42:52 UTC