- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:45:18 -0500
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, 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 1:02 PM, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote: > Having said the above, the draft says: > > ]]These attributes are not intended for use by software that is independent > of the site that uses the attributes.[[ > > Except user agents, when is a software independent of the site that uses the > attributes? Sorry for skipping over this, Leif. I believe an appropriate metric is to consider software 'independent' if the author of the page does not have source-level control over the software, and/or the software does not have the ability to alter the page by itself. For example, the jQuery library is not independent, as the author can download it, alter its source, and host it on their own domain. Linking to it from Google's CDN doesn't change this, as the author can potentially still do so, and the library can still make changes to the page. On the other hand, the Googlebot is an independent piece of software, as it cannot alter a page. Any data-* attributes on the page could *not* have originated from the Googlebot, and so the Googlebot must ignore them. There may be some edge cases under this definition, but it's still a pretty simple principle. As long as the author is in control of the tool, the tool is not independent. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 20:46:10 UTC