explaining my issue with one single attribute, and review of the three options.

Hi Folks I wanted to explain my example from last night. I strongly do not believe we can rely on large authoring tools to automatically generate the web code for authers to get it right. some of our user cases are about small user groups (such as symbol) who desperately need any content they can use. The content being made for them may be small sites making content specifically for these users. Therefor we have to allow authers who are less experienced to manage this.  Also the only way to test for bugs is via running an extension against different profiles and seeing if it works as expected. in other words, bugs will often not be found. Therefor avoiding author errors is critical for this be be of use. The micro syntax of Johns proposal will look like this:  <p aui= " symbol:(https://blissorsomething.com/uri.html)  easylang:(this is a long easy to understand discripiton, it could have 3 sentences . people are likely to have bugs by adding quotes.) numberfree:(this is a a discripiton which aviod's number. it could have four sentences and again people may add quotes or brackets that would add bugs".)  simplification:critical"> some text  about this example </p> Can you spot the bugs?  My counter proposal is to have easylang and numberfree as separate attributes. That will reduce the chance of author errors whilst keeping most of the advantages. It is a compromise (although I prefer the aui- approach) The above proposal would look like: <p aui= " simplification:critical symbol:(https://blissorsomething.com/uri.html)"    easylang="this is a long easy to understand discripiton, it could have 3 sentences . people are likely to have bugs by adding quotes." numberfree = "this is a a discripiton which aviods number. it could have four sentences and again people may add quotes or brackets that would add bugs." > some text  about this example </p> not perfect but less overloaded. All the best Lisa Seeman LinkedIn, Twitter