- From: Krzysztof Maczyński <1981km@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:23:55 +0200
- To: "Aryeh Gregor" <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Cc: <public-html@w3.org>
> On the other hand, I'm not clear what you mean by script libraries or > editors. Are you referring to packages in standard client-side > formats such as JavaScript, which would like to store data in the DOM > for their own purposes? I think this is covered pretty well by the > class attribute, data-*, and so on. While it's true that making up > your own elements would be kind of neat, it doesn't seem to give much > practical benefit. It's entirely possible I missed some use-cases in > all the discussion -- what exactly would custom attributes/elements be > useful for, from the perspective of JavaScript or similar > technologies? getElementByTagNameNS() was mentioned, but > getElementsByClassName() should be just as fast, I'd think. > > If by script libraries and editors you mean non-standard extensions -- > like browser plug-ins, Flash, etc. -- then I think it's entirely > correct that markup to support them shouldn't validate. Validation is > a sign that your content is standards-compliant, which it isn't if it > contains non-standard content. Your differentiation based on this between scripts and browser extensions doesn't seem valid to me. Both could use @class (and some indeed do with current HTML, often unfortunately) or elements in another namespace. So your point would have to be taken equally against arbitrary @class as arbitrarily namespaced elements. Best regards, Krzysztof
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 09:24:37 UTC