- From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:35:07 -0400
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Keryx Web<webmaster at keryx.se> wrote: > Hello! > > I'd say it is safe to say that using quotation marks for attribute values, > always, except perhaps for collapsed, boolean attributes, has been regarded > as best practice for a long time now. Speaking as an instructor for newbies, > enforcing quotation marks has proven its value countless of times for me and > my students. I'd say that all of my colleagues in WaSP EduTF would agree on > that. Others share that sentiment too: > http://twitter.com/burningbird/status/2765482250 > > . . . > > With this in mind I suggest that the spec would be improved in the (below) > following ways, and that we open a discussion about requiring quotation > marks for all non-boolean attributes as a conformance criterion. IMO, this is a stylistic preference. Personally I prefer unquoted values. They're almost always allowed, and the cases where they aren't are obvious to me ([ "'<>], right?). They're fewer bytes, and I think that makes a significant readability difference for short attribute values: <a href="/" title="Back" class="xyz"> <a href=/ title=Back class=xyz> It makes the amount of markup noticeably less in some cases, letting you more easily focus on the actual contents of the page. I can see the opposite arguments as well. But I don't think the merits of either side are clear enough to warrant a conformance criterion. > Add: > In order to avoid errors and increase readability, using quotes is highly > recommended for all non-omitted attribute values. I don't think there's any value in having the spec take a stance like this. It's a matter of taste, IMO.
Received on Thursday, 23 July 2009 10:35:07 UTC