- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:42:17 +0200
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Silvia Pfeiffer, Wed, 16 Oct 2013 19:03:19 +1100: > "extensibility" section talks about private use for data-* and > non-private use should be standardised. JS libraries fall > between these - are neither private, nor standards. >> And to be clear, I mean we could add it as an option in the validator, not >> necessarily as the default. [ … snip … ] > That sounds sensible to me. And it also confirms Robin's suggestion to > encourage library developers with a standard means of extending > attribute names (with xxx-*) and then writing a patch for that xxx > extension for the validator(s). I think it's worth an additional > comment in the extensibility section. If the spec, *as well*, develops a clearer definition of data-*, then one could use that definition to reject for instance, gpluss-foo="bar". -- leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2013 09:42:46 UTC