On Mon, 12 May 2014 11:00:20 +0200, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl>
wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@apple.com> wrote:
On the other hand, if the same element had exposed contentEditable
property, then UA's native contentEditable property would simply be
overridden since it would appear higher up in the prototype chain.
It's true that this custom element's contentEditable would have
completely different semantics from that on other elements but that
wouldn't break websites that use this custom element as long as authors
are only accessing contentEditable property on instances of the custom
element for semantics C.
I forgot the exact details, but we had some amount of trouble when we
introduced min and max attributes due to sites using expandos with the
same names.
I think we need something better than encouraging certain conventions
if we want this to work.
Bare names in event handler content attributes are troublesome.
For instance, sites doing:
<button onclick="action()">
made us have to rename <button action> to <button formaction> (the new
.action reflecting action="" was closer in the scope chain than the
intended function).
Global attributes have the same issue.
So when we research if it's safe to add a new global attribute, it's not
enough to measure how often such an attribute is used in the wild. We need
to research bare names in event handlers also.
--
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
