On Sun, 8 Apr 2007, Henri Sivonen wrote:
At http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2007/04/html_5.html PPK
suggests having an attribute for storing private data for scripts.
Currently, one can invent an attribute and it will work for scripts.
However, it will look ugly for conformance
On Apr 12, 2007, at 01:45, Michael A. Puls II wrote:
On 4/11/07, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was thinking of
establishing an attribute such as script-private where authors
would be free to stick anything for retrieval by scripts.
What would happen with embed
Here's a page I constructed, and tested on Firefox:
http://intertwingly.net/stories/2007/04/10/test.html
This page is meant to be served as application/xhtml+xml.
Can you test it and see what results you get? Then lets discuss further.
In Safari 2.0.4: Processed as HTML, it says data and
On Apr 9, 2007, at 10:27 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Apr 8, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
At http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2007/04/html_5.html PPK
suggests having an attribute for storing private data for scripts.
Currently, one can invent an attribute and it will
On Apr 10, 2007, at 11:42 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Here's a page I constructed, and tested on Firefox:
http://intertwingly.net/stories/2007/04/10/test.html
This page is meant to be served as application/xhtml+xml.
Can you test it and see what results you get? Then lets discuss
further.
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Apr 10, 2007, at 8:12 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Apr 10, 2007, at 2:14 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:41:12 +0200, Sam Ruby
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How so?
I missed the part where you wanted to change
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:40:39 +0200, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Per HTML5 section 8.1.2.3, however, such an attribute name would not be
considered conformant.
Yes, only attributes defined in the specification are conformant.
Despite this, later in document, in the description of
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:40:39 +0200, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
To give a specific example: say I make my own mjsml prefix with
namespace http://example.org/mjsml;. In HTML4 UAs, to look up an
mjsml:extension attribute using getAttribute(mjsml:extension). In
HTML5 UAs, I'd have to
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:40:39 +0200, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Per HTML5 section 8.1.2.3, however, such an attribute name would not
be considered conformant.
Yes, only attributes defined in the specification are conformant.
I was specifically referring to
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:53:21 +0200, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:40:39 +0200, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Per HTML5 section 8.1.2.3, however, such an attribute name would not
be considered conformant.
Yes, only attributes
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:40:39 +0200, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
To give a specific example: say I make my own mjsml prefix with
namespace http://example.org/mjsml;. In HTML4 UAs, to look up an
mjsml:extension attribute using getAttribute(mjsml:extension).
In
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:53:21 +0200, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:40:39 +0200, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Per HTML5 section 8.1.2.3, however, such an attribute name would not
be considered conformant.
Yes,
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:15:15 +0200, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:40:39 +0200, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
To give a specific example: say I make my own mjsml prefix with
namespace http://example.org/mjsml;. In HTML4 UAs, to look up
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:15:19 +0200, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...]
Like others, I'm not convinced that the way forward is to allow a new
attribute which has a micro-grammar for parsing what would be
represented in the DOM essentially as a character blob.
That's fine. I'm merely
If you want structured data in this attribute, why not just use JSON?
That's an idea that crossed my mind as well. I dismissed it for a few
reasons:
- authors would have to entitize quotes and ampersands in their attributes,
which they're not used to doing with JSON normally.
- evaluating it
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I think I'd rather have something simple such as
prefix_name for extensions made by ECMAScript libraries, etc. (As
opposed to an in scope xmlns:prefix=http://...; with prefix:name
extensions which work differently in XML.) That would also work better
for element
Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
(as client side Lisp is my personal dream)
http://www.cs.stevens.edu/~dlong/software/kamen/index.php
-dean
On 4/11/07, Jon Barnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want structured data in this attribute, why not just use JSON?
That's an idea that crossed my mind as well. I dismissed it for a few
reasons:
- authors would have to entitize quotes and ampersands in their attributes,
which they're not
On 4/11/07, Jon Barnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/11/07, Kevin Marks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/11/07, Jon Barnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want structured data in this attribute, why not just use JSON?
That's an idea that crossed my mind as well. I dismissed it for a
On Apr 11, 2007, at 16:04, Sam Ruby wrote:
1) re: prefix_name - how are prefixes registered? Henri is free
to correct me if I am wrong, but I gathered that the requirement
was for a bit of decentralized extensibility, i.e., the notion that
anybody for any reason could defined an extension
On Apr 11, 2007, at 6:04 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I think I'd rather have something simple such as prefix_name for
extensions made by ECMAScript libraries, etc. (As opposed to an in
scope xmlns:prefix=http://...; with prefix:name extensions which
work differently in
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 21:37:31 +0200, Jon Barnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I can think of two possibilities.
One would be to allow the param element as a child of any element (or any
block level element?)
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#param
And then make an attribute of
On 4/10/07, Simon Pieters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or allow any attribute that starts with x_ or something (to prevent
clashing with future revisions of HTML), as private attributes.
Instead of starts with x_, how about contains a colon?
A conformance checker could ensure that there is a
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:21:27 +0200, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Or allow any attribute that starts with x_ or something (to prevent
clashing with future revisions of HTML), as private attributes.
Instead of starts with x_, how about contains a colon?
A conformance checker could ensure
On 4/10/07, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Instead of starts with x_, how about contains a colon?
A conformance checker could ensure that there is a corresponding xmlns
declaration that applies here, and possibly even do additional
verification if it recognizes the namespace.
An HTML5
On 4/10/07, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:21:27 +0200, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Or allow any attribute that starts with x_ or something (to prevent
clashing with future revisions of HTML), as private attributes.
Instead of starts with x_, how
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:41:12 +0200, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
How so?
I missed the part where you wanted to change existing HTML parsers. I
thought Hixie pointed out earlier (by means of examples) why we can't have
namespace parsing in HTML. I suppose we can discuss it again...
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:41:12 +0200, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
How so?
I missed the part where you wanted to change existing HTML parsers. I
thought Hixie pointed out earlier (by means of examples) why we can't
have namespace parsing in HTML. I suppose we can
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:14:16 +0200, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I missed the part where you wanted to change existing HTML parsers. I
thought Hixie pointed out earlier (by means of examples) why we can't
have namespace parsing in HTML. I suppose we can discuss it again...
It is a
On Apr 10, 2007, at 2:14 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:41:12 +0200, Sam Ruby
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How so?
I missed the part where you wanted to change existing HTML
parsers. I thought Hixie pointed out earlier (by means of
examples) why we can't
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Apr 10, 2007, at 2:14 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:41:12 +0200, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
How so?
I missed the part where you wanted to change existing HTML parsers. I
thought Hixie pointed out earlier (by means of
On Apr 8, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
At http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2007/04/html_5.html PPK
suggests having an attribute for storing private data for scripts.
Currently, one can invent an attribute and it will work for
scripts. However, it will look ugly for
Henri, thanks for the link to PPK's suggestions -- I rather like many of
them.
Henri Sivonen wrote:
At http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2007/04/html_5.html PPK
suggests having an attribute for storing private data for scripts.
I'm having a hard time seeing what you're talking about
I can think of two possibilities.
One would be to allow the param element as a child of any element (or any
block level element?)
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#param
And then make an attribute of HTMLElement called params
readonly attribute HTMLCollection params;
Where
At http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2007/04/html_5.html PPK
suggests having an attribute for storing private data for scripts.
Currently, one can invent an attribute and it will work for scripts.
However, it will look ugly for conformance checking. Since this is
essentially a
35 matches
Mail list logo
