Re: Making all elements and attributes that contain hyphens valid

On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 01:07:48 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer  
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> On 10/03/2013 03:05 AM, Michael[tm] Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> We don't want to make it harder for authors to know when they have
>>> documents that contain names which aren't part of any standard, and we
>>> don't want to make it harder for authors to catch misspelled attribute
>>> names, and we don't want authors to end up being even further limited  
>>> in the choice of tools they can use -- limited to only using tools
>>> that are complex enough to understand all the magic we're introducing.
>>
>> [chair hat off]
>>
>> As implementer of a validator for another set of markup languages (Atom,
>> RSSes), my thoughts match Mike's though I end up with a slightly  
>> different conclusion.
>>
>> WebComponents defines a mechanism by which new elements may be minted.  
>> So any name containing a hyphen may potentially be valid.  A page
>> should only be validate without messages if such a name was actually
>> minted, and can be verified as being used correctly.
>>
>> Note that I said "validate without message", not "considered valid".
>
> I think I'm with Sam here.

I think I already said so.

> We're currently building a library that introduces new attributes to
> make video elements work more easily with WebRTC. What should we call
> our attributes? It doesn't seem like something that would be
> standardised any time soon. It would be good to not just use data-*
> attributes because there could be collisions. Should we sub-namespace
> it? data-rtc-* just to get not invalid attribute messages? Or should
> we do what angular did?

We're looking at adding an attribute to link (to make Opensearch work a  
bit more flexibly). data-* seems wrong since it's required to be  
"private", although maybe that should change somehow. Namespaces got nixed.

We expect to get a reasonable amount of usage, so we are quite open to  
writing an HTML extension spec, but what should we do if we are going to  
work with a new attribute and it doesn't get accepted. In particular, I am  
not that keen on using a vendor prefix like yandex-foo ...

Any thoughts?

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2013 23:40:13 UTC