- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:50:47 +0200
- To: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "Charles McCathie Nevile" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Cc: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 01:39:47 +0200, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > 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 ... Writing a spec extending HTML doesn't necessarily mean writing a W3C HTML WG HTML extension spec. You can do that if you want, but if the HTML WG rejects it, you can move the spec elsewhere (at least if you used a permissive license...) and have a Yandex spec that defines your foo="" attribute on <link>, and it would be valid HTML for the community that think that your spec applies. That's how HTML's "applicable specifications" thing works. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2013 08:51:20 UTC