- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:02:43 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013, Simon Pieters wrote: > > I think it would be bad to have an IDL attribute without a working > content attribute for a given element. That's just confusing. Yeah, that's the main reason I wouldn't put this on Element if it was up to me. It seems weird to say to everyone around the world that we're basically stomping on any content attribute starting with "on". It's one thing to take "id", and even maybe ok to take "class" (though that starts getting a bit iffy, it's easy to come up with examples where the attribute "class" means something different than we do in HTML), but I'm sure there's all kinds of vocabularies that have an "onclick" attribute with _very_ different semantics than ours. For example, I'm sure there's many XML-based UI languages that have onclick="" handlers but I doubt that they all use JavaScript and I really doubt that they all have the crazy semantics that HTML has: http://whatwg.org/html/#event-handler-content-attributes -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2013 22:03:08 UTC