[whatwg] Repetition Model

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Dean Edwards wrote:
> > 
> > Can you be more specific? :-)
> 
> Er. I was trying to be general. :-)
> 
> As I say I'm happy with the repetition model. As it stands, I think it 
> is workable. I'm not entirely happy with introducing double-barrelled 
> attribute names (this implies that we've missed a level of abstraction). 
> But I appreciate that we are trying to work within the existing HTML 
> rules of containment.

Yeah, I don't really like the attributes either. But it's better than the 
only other alternative I see (one attribute with a hard-to-parse syntax).


> It was my understanding (from reading previous threads) that there were 
> still some misgivings about the repetition model.

I have heard people say vague things, but I haven't heard any specific 
issues (short of "I don't think it should be there at all"). Lacking 
actual concrete issues, there's not much we can do. (I don't propose 
delaying that part of the spec while we wait for concrete issues.)


> As Olav suggests, it may be complex enough to warrant a separate 
> document. That would give us some leeway to iron out any crinkles that 
> the model is perceived as having.

We have the time to iron the problems out now, without splitting the 
document out. Someone just needs to say what it is that needs ironing! :-)


> I've thought about some changes we could make to the model but to be 
> honest, I think it may be as good as we can do. Which is pretty good 
> IMHO.

Yeah, I think that sums up my own opinion too.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2005 11:10:20 UTC