This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/association-of-controls-and-forms.html Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#constructing-form-data-set Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#constructing-form-data-set Comment: What the hell is an IDL attribute? Posted from: 77.99.90.97 User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/5.0
[[ An attribute is an interface member that matches an AttributeOrOperation non-terminal with an Attribute non-terminal in its derivation, and is used to declare that objects implementing the interface will have an attribute with the given identifier whose value can be retrieved and (in some cases) changed. ]] http://www.w3.org/TR/WebIDL/#idl-attributes
"IDL attribute" is defined in the "Terminology" section, but nothing refers to it. Is this deliberate? It would probably be a big job to add all the xrefs.
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: xref'ing IDL attribute would significantly reduce readability. Besides, you should always read the terminology section. Or at least not complain about terminology if you haven't.
I disagree that it would reduce readability, and that readers should be expected to always read the terminology section. I'd prefer to get Ian's opinion. The only reason I see not to do it is that it might be a pain to add all the xrefs.
Maybe instead the IDL boxes should have a label saying "IDL" to make it more discoverable what IDL attribute means.
.idl { position:relative } .idl::before { content:'IDL'; font:bold small sans-serif; padding:0.5em; background:white; position:absolute; top:0; margin:-1px 0 0 -4em; width:1.5em; border:thin solid; border-radius:0 0 0 0.5em }
mass-moved component to LC1
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: Partially Accepted Change Description: see diff given below Rationale: There's 645 occurrences of "IDL attribute". I'm not xreffing it. That's a non-starter. The term is defined in the first occurrence of the term after the table of contents, in the very first paragraph of the terminology section. That's basically required reading for anyone reading the spec. If anyone is reading it without first at least skimming the terminology section, it's not surprising that the spec won't make much sense. Marking the IDL boxes as IDL isn't a bad idea though. And I rather like the style zcorpan came up with. Done.
Actually, no diff for this one. The style sheet isn't in Subversion.