- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 11:24:13 +0200
- To: "Ryosuke Niwa" <rniwa@apple.com>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: "Brian Kardell" <bkardell@gmail.com>, "Glenn Maynard" <glenn@zewt.org>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Wilson Page" <wilsonpage@me.com>, "Dimitri Glazkov" <dglazkov@google.com>, "public-webapps@w3c.org" <public-webapps@w3c.org>
On Mon, 12 May 2014 11:00:20 +0200, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com> wrote: >> On the other hand, if the same element had exposed contentEditable >> property, then UA's native contentEditable property would simply be >> overridden since it would appear higher up in the prototype chain. >> It's true that this custom element's contentEditable would have >> completely different semantics from that on other elements but that >> wouldn't break websites that use this custom element as long as authors >> are only accessing contentEditable property on instances of the custom >> element for semantics C. > > I forgot the exact details, but we had some amount of trouble when we > introduced min and max attributes due to sites using expandos with the > same names. > > I think we need something better than encouraging certain conventions > if we want this to work. Bare names in event handler content attributes are troublesome. For instance, sites doing: <button onclick="action()"> made us have to rename <button action> to <button formaction> (the new .action reflecting action="" was closer in the scope chain than the intended function). Global attributes have the same issue. So when we research if it's safe to add a new global attribute, it's not enough to measure how often such an attribute is used in the wild. We need to research bare names in event handlers also. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Monday, 12 May 2014 09:24:47 UTC