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

Re: ISSUE-179 av_param: Chairs Solicit Proposals

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:31:06 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2=sja_n6Ak0pS8g-=WNvw=hp4NcMX=51JYK5r7N-OdMxw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Leif Halvard Silli
<xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:
> Silvia Pfeiffer, Sun, 30 Oct 2011 18:19:50 +1100:
>> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> 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.

Well observed - I have added the "extension specification" situation
to the no-change CP. It makes no difference, however, since it still
means that no change is required.

> 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.)

Well, yeah, that was even too new to slip through. :-) I'll also
mention this in the no-change proposal, even though I am no sure
exactly how it can be used yet - e.g. can it be used inside a <video>

Thanks for noting these.


> [1]
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/infrastructure#other-applicable-specifications
> [2] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/text-level-semantics#the-data-element
> --
> Leif H Silli
Received on Monday, 31 October 2011 01:32:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:44 UTC