Re: ISSUE-179 av_param: Chairs Solicit Proposals

Silvia Pfeiffer, Sun, 30 Oct 2011 18:19:50 +1100:
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Glenn Adams <> wrote:
>> As I pointed out in the change proposal rationale, x-* attributes are
>> unacceptable for use by other standards fora (and W3C WGs) for defining
>> specifications that involve additional A/V parameters. Such usage impedes
>> standardization.
> On the contrary. It allows other standards fora to experiment with
> attributes that they believe are necessary and once those attributes
> have been proven to be necessary and widely accepted, they can be
> introduced into HTML by the W3C.

The two CPs do not make up for the fact that a community could define 
an 'applicable specification' which in turn could define attributes 
without x-* or data-*.[1] One purpose of the av_param proposal is to 
avoid such extra specifications. But why is that important, when the 
alternative seems to be de-facto specifications of <param>? And, 
despite that the no-change CP discusses the extensibility of HTML5, the 
'applicable spec' option does not get discussion there either. Instead 
it seems to assume that x-attributes would/should eventually become 
part of HTML5 proper.

The two CPs do also not discuss the brand new <data> element, which the 
spec describes as sometimes an alternative to @data-*. [2] The <data> 
element can be used in microformats, and thus there is an explicit 
permission to use <data> in a site independent way. (Unlike @data-*, 
for which there only is permission to use with distributed scripts.)

Leif H Silli

Received on Sunday, 30 October 2011 20:24:30 UTC