- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 05:24:18 +0200
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Silvia Pfeiffer, Tue, 22 Oct 2013 12:20:23 +1100: > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> wrote: >> On 21.10.2013 22:37, Sam Ruby wrote: >>>> 1. data-* attributes should be encouraged for inpage scripts and >>>> Javascript libraries who are not yet widely recognized >>> >>> What would you expect to happen once such a library becomes widely >>> recognized? >> >> Library authors can decide to switch to prefix-* or support both >> syntaxes. AFAIK AngularJS supports both ng-* and data-ng-*. > > Interesting that you dug into this. AngularJS actually supports a > variety of extension solutions: > http://docs.angularjs.org/guide/directive > > They also support x-ng-* , ng:* , ng_* - I hope that we're not > expecting every single library to support all these prefix variations > just to "secure and cover" their namespace. One reason they “cover” data-ng-* and x-ng-* is validity: ”the directive can be prefixed with x-, or data- to make it HTML validator compliant”. (Except that x- is not HTML validator compliant -it is only recognized by the spec.) So, presumably, if HTML5 - and the validator - was as welcoming with regard to ng-* as it is for data-ng-*, they would not have hijacked data-ng-* (and x-ng-*). But then again, they also have a “conditional comment directive” (<!-- directive: my-dir exp -->), and class names, too. So flexibility (including w.r.t legacy browsers), is also part of the motivation - hence, making the validator silent with regard to ng-*, would probably not solve everything. But of course: If HTML5 had not minted data-* and x-*, AngularJS probably would not have minted them either. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 22 October 2013 03:24:49 UTC