W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2011

Re: noted 3 issues re: time/data (was Re: minutes for HTML WG f2f, 2011-11-04, part 1)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 07:54:24 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDJzxUnmQYqcj8Edv7+L_rqLo0bJVsG75pXRWGf-e1obQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com" <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
Cc: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com
<mtanalin@yandex.ru> wrote:
> The only point of @itempropvalue is to replace redundant DATA element. If we don't need DATA element, then the @itempropvalue is probably unneeded too.
> So the question is: _either_ DATA element _or_ @itempropvalue attribute. If someone states that @itempropvalue is confusing, then he should provide an example where DATA element in the same situation is not confusing. Otherwise, appropriate discussion branch is pointless.

The entire point of this branch of the discussion is that
@itempropvalue allows for confusing situations that are literally
impossible to get into with <data>.  There is *no way* to encode
Philip's examples with <data>, which is a good thing.

Now, if you think one of the examples *should* be doable, please
explain *what*, precisely, it should do.  We can then tell you how it
would be encoded with <data>.  Right now, though, those examples are
all fundamentally ambiguous, because that's the point we were making.

Received on Friday, 18 November 2011 15:55:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:45 UTC