- From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 20:55:10 -0800 (PST)
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, www-style@w3.org, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Tab Atkins wrote:
> > I mentioned this a few months ago, but I would like to reiterate: I
> > think it is definitely worth going to some measure to ensure an
> > understanding of the actual relationship between data properties in
> > CSS and data properties in HTML as I can easily see confusion here
> > with people doing something like:
> >
> > <div data-foo="something">
> >
> > and then expecting to be able to say:
> >
> > div{
> > property: data(foo);
> > }
> >
> > Or vice versa.
>
> Naming is still somewhat up in the air. We may just change the name
> entirely, to var-* or something. If we don't, then I think it would
> be good to add a note saying that it's merely a surface resemblance.
During the TPAC discussion of this proposal there was a brief discussion
of this. Not all of that discussion got minuted but I remember Peter
Linss mentioned that he thought we should use functional notation
throughout rather than have 'data-' (or 'var-') micro-syntax and I tend
to agree with him.
So instead of:
div {
data-foo: xxx;
}
#content { color: data(foo); }
the author would use:
div {
data(foo): xxx;
}
#content { color: data(foo); }
This way the definition and use stays the same and there's less potential
for an author misconstruing a data-xxx thingy as some property they don't
know.
I think it would be a good idea to mark naming as an issue in the spec, noting
the '$', 'var-' and functional syntax proposals, along with your objections
(changes to the CSS core grammar as I recall or whatever).
Regards,
John Daggett
Received on Monday, 20 February 2012 04:55:38 UTC