- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:25:52 +0000
- To: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
- CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 15/03/2012 09:47, Jirka Kosek wrote: > On 15.3.2012 10:15, David Carlisle wrote: > >> I think the (or rather an) "html way" (as used by RDFa for >> example) is to exercise the clause in html5 that allows other >> specifications to extend it, and then just assert that (say) >> its-locNote is a valid attribute of the extended specification. > > Hi David, thanks for insight. Could you please point me to the clause > that allows this, I wasn't able to find? whatwg version single page 2.2.3 extensibility (presumably in other versions too but that was easier to search) says: (big doc, slow link!!) http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#extensibility > When vendor-neutral extensions to this specification are needed, > either this specification can be updated accordingly, or an > extension specification can be written that overrides the > requirements in this specification. When someone applying this > specification to their activities decides that they will recognize > the requirements of such an extension specification, it becomes an > applicable specification for the purposes of conformance requirements > in this specification. back to you: > > Also there will be problem with such approach when page is going to > be validated. Normal HTML5 validator would refuse page with its- > attributes. yes sure, although some validators at least allow schema to be uploaded it's tricky to get that right and merge in a schema for just the extra bits into the html5 validation, especially if that's using a lot of custom code rather than just a schema. Time will tell.... > Shouldn't the conformance be criteria lifted then and allow any attribute > named prefix-* (except aria- which can be checked more rigorously)? well there's already data-. I'd have some sympathy with extending that a bit but on the other hand I can see people not wanting it trivial for systems to claim pages are valid if they just have a basic skeleton document and all the actual text and images are really in semi-proprietary mso-zzzz attributes only understood by one browser. (No one would do that, would they?.....) > > Jirka > David
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2012 10:26:19 UTC