- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 12:41:32 +0200
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: Chris Double <cdouble@mozilla.com>, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
On Jan 3, 2010, at 13:14, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > I assume similar reasons may be the case with some of the other sites > that also chose autobuffer="true". It's unfortunate that the term "boolean attribute" makes people assume that the attributes take values "true" and "false". The language implementation pattern of boolean attributes being sensitive to presence or absence is way too late to change. If a spec change is to be made about "boolean attributes", the best that can be done is calling them something else (what?) that doesn't suggest they can take "false" as a value. As for making autobuffer tri-state, I think changing it at this point is too late, because it has already been implemented as a boolean attribute in a browser that has significant market share (http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/12/22/firefox-35-surpasses-ie7-market-share). At this point, I think the available options (if there's agreement that authors should be able to instruct browsers not to buffer) are minting another boolean attribute 'nobuffer' or a tri-state attribute 'buffering' (with precedence rules relative to autobuffer). -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 4 January 2010 10:42:11 UTC