- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 20:17:51 +0100
- To: "Steve Claflin" <steve@steveclaflin.com>, "Adam van den Hoven" <adam@littlefyr.com>
- Cc: "Yoav Weiss" <yoav@yoav.ws>, "Greg Whitworth" <gwhit@microsoft.com>, "Tommy Hodgins" <tomhodgins@gmail.com>, "Hall, Charles (DET-MRM)" <Charles.Hall@mrm-mccann.com>, "public-respimg@w3.org" <public-respimg@w3.org>, "Jason Grigsby" <jason@cloudfour.com>, "Paul Deschamps" <pdescham49@gmail.com>, "Alex Bell" <alex@bellandwhistle.net>, "Jonathan Kingston" <jonathan@jooped.co.uk>
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 19:27:05 +0100, Adam van den Hoven <adam@littlefyr.com> wrote: > Yoav's right. I think I had slipped a gear and was thinking art direction > variations, which is handled by the <source> element. > > Developer confusion is something that we should avoid and I'm OK with > making things clear although I'm not a huge fan of hyphenated attribute > names without reason. Perhaps, however, following in the footsteps of > data-, we might have hint-aspect on the assumption that at some future > date > we might add other hinting attributes for external resources. I can't see > what that might be but my lack of foresight doesn't mean it won't happen. > data- is basically a less verbose namespace, and I think we might want to > resuse that notion. No, attribute names should be without hyphens *unless* it is really a namespace, like data-* or aria-*. Saying "well we might add something similar in the future" is not a good ground for claiming a single new attribute should have its own new namespace. :-) -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Friday, 16 December 2016 19:18:30 UTC