- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:25:03 +0200
- To: "HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>, "Robin Berjon" <robin@w3.org>
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 17:18:46 +0200, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote: > Naturally, it would be useful to advise such third parties that they > would be better off getting any generally useful such attribute > standardised. Yes. This is the best approach. The spec already allows this. It allows "applicable specifications" to extend HTML. So the epub community could write a spec for the whatever="" attribute. They could also come to the WHATWG or HTML WG table and propose their extension -- even if it gets rejected for HTML proper, the discussion might reveal design problems with the proposal that the community can fix in their own applicable specification. > But it provides a valuable escape hatch for when there is no agreement > to introduce such features into HTML. Right now the alternatives are: > > 1) Use namespaces; bad idea, forces XHTML. > 2) Use data-$prefix-*; bad idea, not meant for that. Not the only options, see above. > The impact on user agents is zero, only validators are impacted. > > Thoughts? I don't think we should allow arbitrary attributes if they have dashes. AFAICT it would make validators less useful at catching mistakes while not really solving the stated problem. Validators should actually *validate* the whatever="" attribute, not punch a huge anything-goes hole in all of HTML. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Friday, 20 September 2013 08:25:32 UTC