This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 12880 - I think the boolean attributes are generally a bad idea in HTML5 given that the intended bare syntax can't be represented in the XML syntax, and that you're effectively encouraging people to break XML compatibility for no good reason. So I'm not happy to
Summary: I think the boolean attributes are generally a bad idea in HTML5 given that t...
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: LC1 HTML Microdata (editor: Ian Hickson) (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other other
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-06-03 13:13 UTC by contributor
Modified: 2011-08-04 05:05 UTC (History)
7 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments

Description contributor 2011-06-03 13:13:41 UTC 
Specification: http://dev.w3.org/html5/md/
Section: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete.html#top

Comment:
I think the boolean attributes are generally a bad idea in HTML5 given that
the intended bare syntax can't be represented in the XML syntax, and that
you're effectively encouraging people to break XML compatibility for no good
reason. 

So I'm not happy to see the itemscope attribute in microdata. For sake of
argument, why not simply remove it entirely, and allow the itemtype attribute
to define the scope of an object? 

Posted from: 69.133.124.182
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686) AppleWebKit/534.24 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/11.0.696.71 Safari/534.24
Comment 1 Philip Jägenstedt 2011-06-03 13:27:09 UTC 
Not all items have a type, see for example http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/links.html#examples-1

The top-level item has itemtype="http://microformats.org/profile/hcard" but the sub-items, like <span itemprop="n" itemscope>, don't have a type.

Anyway, the canonical XML-serialization of itemscope would be itemscope="itemscope", although itemscope="" would work just as well.
Comment 2 Aryeh Gregor 2011-06-03 22:22:55 UTC 
<foo bar> in the HTML syntax is the same as <foo bar=""> in the HTML or XHTML syntaxes.  Authors who want XML compatibility should just use the latter, slightly longer variant.  Given that, do you still have any problem with the spec if it stands?
Comment 3 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2011-06-21 06:51:32 UTC 
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Rejected
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: There's no XML compatibility problem here. It's just different syntax (like many other parts of HTML vs XML).
Comment 4 Michael[tm] Smith 2011-08-04 05:05:29 UTC 
mass-move component to LC1