- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:40:20 -0500
- To: W3C HTML <www-html@w3.org>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Le 14 déc. 2004, à 09:04, Daniel Glazman a écrit : > Robin Berjon wrote: > >> No it doesn't. Attributes are things that float in space, they're >> attributes of something (hence the name). > > Absolutely. That's why they should acquire the something's namespace... which means as Bjoern showed Le 14 déc. 2004, à 08:14, Bjoern Hoehrmann a écrit : > <ul type = '...'> > <style type = '...'> > <input type = '...'> > <button type = '...'> that it's not that easy to do now depending on the way it's defined. If you put a default namespace on attribute, we would break the old specification like XHTML 1.0 What is the default semantics of xhtml:type? or we have to redefine it locally which goes back to the initial problem. We have to understand the local context (element name) to understand the semantics of the attributes. Which raises another question: Should attributes have unique names in a specification? I think there are pros and cons on both sides, then no easy solutions. :))) Unique names for attributes will drive us to strange names like > <ul type = '...'> > <style type = '...'> > <input type = '...'> > <button type = '...'> ===> ltype, stype, itype, btype :) and zillions of other terms :)
Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2004 15:40:22 UTC