dita-lightweight-dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: DITA and HTML5
- From: "Michael Priestley" <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>
- To: dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 20:56:27 -0400
I talked a bit more about it with Don,
and this is where my thinking is right now, based on the descriptions of
custom elements here:
https://www.w3.org/TR/custom-elements/#custom-elements-autonomous-drawbacks
- our two main alternatives are autonomous
custom elements, which we could give custom element names to
- or customized built-in elements, which
would retain the name of an existing HTML element plus the "is"
attribute giving a custom element name
Example for autonomous custom elements:
<simple-steps>
<simple-step>...</simple-step>
</simple-steps>
Pros:
- they have easily understandable semantic
names
- they look like XML, and can more closely
mimic XML specializations
Cons:
- nothing will happen remotely resembling
fallback processing (like rendering these as an ordered list) without a
bunch of _javascript_
- for an extended discussion of how
sucky this can be, see https://www.w3.org/TR/custom-elements/#custom-elements-autonomous-drawbacks
Example for customized built-in elements
<ol is="simple-steps">
<li
is="simple-step">...</li>
</ol>
Pros:
- they process automatically as list
items
- they can be registered using _javascript_
as special nodes, for extra behavior, but you only need to identify the
delta stuff
Cons:
- looks less like XML
Net
My clear preference is now for customized
built-in elements, given the warnings of the spec against using autonomous
custom elements when extending an existing element type.
But the open question for me is whether
the "is" attribute can take multiple values. If it can, it could
map really cleanly to specializations. Even the requirement for hyphenation
in the element name could be a mirror for the "/" in the XML
class attribute.
Otherwise we'd be looking again at limiting
ourselves to one level of specialization, which may still be on the page
anyway - nobody has said they want it yet.
So... does anyone have a contact on
the Web Platform Working Group? I couldn't find a simple answer to my question
anywhere, including here:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
If no one else has a contact I'll poke
around IBM.
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Enterprise Content Technology Strategist
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]