12880 2011-06-03 13:13:41 +0000 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 2011-08-04 05:05:29 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG LC1 HTML Microdata (editor: Ian Hickson) unspecified Other other RESOLVED WONTFIX http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#top P3 normal --- 1 contributor ian ayg ian julian.reschke mike philipj public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 49150 0 contributor 2011-06-03 13:13:41 +0000 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 49152 1 philipj 2011-06-03 13:27:09 +0000 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. 49176 2 ayg 2011-06-03 22:22:55 +0000 <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? 49979 3 ian 2011-06-21 06:51:32 +0000 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). 52935 4 mike 2011-08-04 05:05:29 +0000 mass-move component to LC1