- From: CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:36:40 -0400
- To: <aharon@google.com>, <ntounsi@emi.ac.ma>
- CC: <public-i18n-bidi@w3.org>
Hi. ________________________________ > From: aharon@google.com > Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 05:50:19 +0200 > To: ntounsi@emi.ac.ma > CC: tabatkins@google.com; public-i18n-bidi@w3.org > Subject: Re: HTML attribute with no value > >> I would prefer ubi as boolean attribute. >> equivalent to (or "on" (or "true")), >> otherwise, it is "off" (or "false"). > > ubi can not be a boolean attribute in the exact same sense that > selected is, since selected does not have an explicit false value. If > it's omitted, its false. For ubi, we want an explicit false value > because there are cases when it is true by default. Thus, the "off" > value, which no real boolean attribute has. > > Nevertheless, it is certainly our intention that should > be equivalent to (or whatever we want to call the true > value). The question is how exactly to formally define ubi in order to > achieve that, and whether the true value implied by giving the > attribute with no value has to be "ubi", or can be the more meaningful > "on". > > Aharon > Hi, and sorry for my delayed response. I hope also for something close to a boolean value (ubi=yes or on or whatever, ubi=no, default might be specified with an empty string; whatever works for html 5). (I also have a few other comments and some minor and almost unecessary proofreading comments for sections 1 and 2 which I am sending separately; will get to section 3 eventually; best wishes to all of you and let me know if there is anything I can do for the draft besides proofread section 3 as I am doing o.k. for now . . . much better than I was.) Thanks, Best, --C. E. Whitehead cewcathar@hotmail.com > On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Najib Tounsi >> wrote: > Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin wrote: > In the f2f, we said: > > ubi syntax is ubi=”ubi”|””|”off”. The “ubi” and empty string values > are equivalent, and mean that bidi isolation is on for the element. > > > I am confused about why we needed two values meaning "on", and if so, > why neither one of them is named "on". > > +1 > > > > The crux of my question is what, exactly, does the HTML spec say > about an attributes with no value, e.g. ? Is it always > equivalent to , or to , or something else? > > > I would prefer ubi as boolean attribute. equivalent to> ubi="ubi"> (or "on" (or "true")), otherwise, it is "off" (or "false"). > > It seems that HTML 4.0 permit this. > > Najib > > > If is equivalent to , I do not see why we > need an empty string value. > > If, on the other hand, is equivalent to , I > understand why we need an empty value as well as an equivalent > non-empty value, but I do not understand why the latter has to be the > meaningless "ubi". I would prefer ubi=”on”|””|”off”. > > Aharon > > > >
Received on Monday, 20 September 2010 20:37:13 UTC