- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 16:07:13 +0100
- To: tink@tink.uk
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
I'd agree that the overhead required here to make the whole extension document would be ridiculously large compared to the actual normative text concerning the attribute itself, so I'd favor adding it to the core HTML spec. Also, does the attribute need to be considered/patched in anywhere else in the spec? Any focus-related algorithm? -- Patrick H. Lauke > On 25 Apr 2017, at 10:07, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk> wrote: > > Hello HTML, > > A proposed definition for the inert attribute has been incubated in WICG by Alice Boxhall [1]. It's an HTML attribute that lets an author indicate that an element is inert and can't be interacted with. > > We'd like to continue working on the inert attribute in WebPlat, but there are different ways we can do it: > > 1. Incorporate the inert attribute into the HTML specification directly. > 2. Maintain the inert attribute as an extension specification. > > Our charter encourages us to use extensions [2]: > "The Web Platform Working Group should develop modular specifications to the greatest extent possible for the development of the HTML language, allowing extension specifications to define new elements, new attributes, new values for attributes that accept defined sets of keywords, and new APIs." > > But we have to balance this with the practicality of an extension specification. The inert attribute is defined in just a handful of paragraphs, which means adding it directly into the HTML specification would be quicker and easier than creating a separate extension. > > We'd like to know what you think about these options, and which one we should opt for? > > Léonie > [1] https://github.com/WICG/inert/blob/master/README.md > [2] https://www.w3.org/2016/11/webplatform-charter.html > -- > @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem >
Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2017 15:07:50 UTC