- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 15:16:32 +0100
- To: "Jirka Kosek" <jirka@kosek.cz>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "Simon Sapin" <simon.sapin@exyr.org>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:37:22 +0100, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> wrote: > On 26.2.2014 14:30, Simon Pieters wrote: >> Does SVG or DocBook say that an attribute in the XLink namespace is >> translatable by default? > > No, only HTML5 defines application specific rules. For all other > languages default is simple -- attributes are not translateable, and > elements are translateable. But please note that ITS is not only about > translateablity, Is there a non-translation ITS use case for ::attr(*) involving namespaced attributes? > and that non-element selectors should extend selectors > to be more generic selection/query language, not only to cater for some > ITS use-cases. I don't see how this argues for one behavior over the other. To sum up what we have so far: * The stated use cases so far would work equally well with either behavior. * Jirka thinks selecting all attributes better matches author expectations or is more useful. * Selecting all attributes is inconsistent with ::attr(foo) and [foo] * Selecting all attributes is inconsistent with the universal selector when a default namespace is declared. So, unless there are further use cases that would tip the scales, it seems it boils down to what is considered more important: consistency or matching author expectations. Or maybe research/poll what authors expect, in case their expectation is different from Jirka's? -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2014 14:17:07 UTC