- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:01:14 +0200
- To: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>
- Cc: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Michael[tm] Smith, Wed, 16 Oct 2013 15:28:18 +0900:
> A library is by definition non-private. I don't see a gray area there.
Then why did data-* get used by libraries from early on? [2]
]]
<script src="../../src/svg.js" data-path="../../src"></script>
[[
> data-* isn't intended for use in libraries. I think there's nothing wrong
> with a library minting attribute names as long as there's good
> documentation about what the attributes are and how to use them.
May be the spec could point out that data-* isn't intended for
libraries? Currently it says that it is for [2] “custom data private to
the page **or application**”. Not everyone has the difference between
application and library programmed into their genes. For instance, the
sentence
]] These attributes are not intended for use by software that is
independent of the site that uses the attributes. [[
could be extended with a word on not using data-* for libraries.
[1]
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/dom.html#embedding-custom-non-visible-data-with-the-data-*-attributes
[2]
http://codinginparadise.org/projects/svgweb/docs/QuickStart.html#script_tag
--
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2013 07:01:52 UTC