Re: Making all elements and attributes that contain hyphens valid

Am 16.10.13 14:38, schrieb Michael[tm] Smith:
> Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, 2013-10-16 22:07 +1100:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org> wrote:
>>> If that's the case, then I think the library developers are doing a
>>> disservice to their users. I'd think they at least could provide something
>>> like https://developers.google.com/+/web/+1button/#plusone-tag-attributes
>> That's what I call "documentation", but not a standard. :-)
> Well I guess the word "standard" in the context we normally use it for
> Web-platform technologies normally only applies to stuff that's implemented
> natively in browsers. So you can't really have a standard for a particular JS
> library anyway. But you can have really good user documentation for it. And
> to me, good documentation beats a bad standard any day of the week anyway.
>
>>> The only real benefit of data-* I've ever been able to see is the
>>> convenience of the dataset property. But IMHO that doesn't seem worth quite
>>> as much weighed against the side effect of (A) libraries adopting data-*
>>> for non-private use, with data- prefixed names that end up becoming sort of
>>> de facto standard attribute names with well-defined microsyntax/ datatypes
>>> while (B) the spec says that there are no invalid values for data-*. That
>>> situation is not helpful to Web authors.
>> But it's ok - a parser just has to accept that the data-* attributes
>> are valid, it doesn't have to ascertain that the value is valid.
> It's imaginable that there could be applications other than just parsers
> and your own library that you might want to have do checking of the values
> of your custom attributes.
>
>> So, in your opinion, should we change
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/dom.html#embedding-custom-non-visible-data-with-the-data-*-attributes
>> to only apply to private attributes,
>>
>> and add to
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/infrastructure.html#extensibility
>> the suggestion to use a custom prefix xxx-* for libraries?
> I think it'd be helpful to hear from more people who think it's preferable
> for libraries to expose custom attributes as data-xxx-foo instead of as
> xxx-foo, and what the rationale is.
>
> But my own opinion as somebody who's trying to provide authors with good
> ways to catch authoring mistakes in attribute values is that for attributes
> that authors are likely to make mistakes with, we're better off providing
> them with attribute names that don't start with the data- prefix and that
> therefore aren't part of the everybody-else-ignore-these-attributes
> contract that the data- prefix comes with.

+1

- Felix

Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2013 12:48:03 UTC