- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:23:25 -0500
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Tony Ross <tross@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote: >> It is, but data-* does a poor job. >> >> SVGWeb can use a name, another JS library use the same name, and if a >> person wants to use both JS libraries together, they're screwed. >> >> The fact that data-* had no ability to enforce a consistent name clash >> prevention shows they're really not useful for decentralized >> extensibility. > > I can't tell from searching around on the svgweb demos how it uses > data-* attributes, but this really shouldn't be a problem in practice. > > If svgweb uses data-svgweb-* attributes, frex, then the chance of > clashing with another library is basically nil. Before starting any > new library one should probably google for a bit to make sure that > one's preferred name for the project isn't already being used. > > Before you can say that data-* is "really not useful for decentralized > extensibility", you'd have to show how, even with this basic friendly > practice of "self-namespacing", there were clashes in data-* attribute > naming in practice with half-significant libraries. Preferably, you'd > show how this actually caused some authors some grief, such as through > bug reports or forum posts complaining. > Actually, with all due respect, I don't need to show anything. I support the Microsoft initial effort, and believe that it is the approach we should working with, and assisting Tony in solving any problems with the approach. But I encourage you to submit a new proposal for using data-* as a solution for decentralized extensibility. I think it's acceptable to submit multiple proposals for the same issue. Maciej, would this be OK? > I'll note that a similar practice is used in jQuery's plugin > architecture, and it generally works fine. Even though everyone wants > their plugin to have a short name, there are just *so many* names to > choose from that it's pretty easy to find a good unique one. > > I suspect that this style of self-policed namespacing is used widely > in this sort of space. Have there been any notable failures? > > ~TJ > Shelley
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 19:24:01 UTC