Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Change to prefer data-lt for referring to link-titles #468

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Jul 31, 2015
Merged

Conversation

halindrome
Copy link
Contributor

Addresses concerns from the user community about the use of the 'lt' attribute because it does
not validate.

As per requests in issue #466 and #467, modified the logic for
finding link titles and aliases to prefer the use of the data-lt
attribute instead of 'lt' or 'title'.  'title' remains deprecated
so that we can remove support for it in some future version and
leave it available for A11Y uses.

If this is ultimately merged in, will also update the documentation
to reflect the preference for data-lt.
If the date was the 31st and there were fewer than 31 days in the
current month, the test of isoDate would fail.
@sideshowbarker
Copy link
Contributor

🌻 @halindrome cheers

@sideshowbarker
Copy link
Contributor

I'm still 50/50 is we should ban lt outright because it's non-conforming. @halindrome, @tobie, @darobin?

IMHO you should still allow it (and document it). People who want to opt-in to using lt should be able to make that choice.

P.S. Being non-conforming with regard to document-conformance requirements in the HTML spec shouldn’t be considered absolutely bad. It’s a very different kind of conformance than browser conformance to UA requirements in the spec. Sometimes individual Web developers/authors have their own good reasons for choosing to use some non-conforming HTML markup for some particular case.

@halindrome
Copy link
Contributor Author

I agree completely. Which is why I left the support in. I did not leave the
documentation in. I can update that.
On Jul 31, 2015 6:44 PM, "Michael[tm] Smith" notifications@github.com
wrote:

I'm still 50/50 is we should ban lt outright because it's non-conforming.
@halindrome https://github.com/halindrome, @tobie
https://github.com/tobie, @darobin https://github.com/darobin?

IMHO you should still allow it (and document it). People who want to
opt-in to using lt should be able to make that choice.

P.S. Being non-conforming with regard to document-conformance requirements
in the HTML spec shouldn’t be considered absolutely bad. It’s a very
different kind of conformance than browser conformance to UA requirements
in the spec. Sometimes individual Web developers/authors have their own
good reasons for choosing to use some non-conforming HTML markup for some
particular case.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#468 (comment).

@marcoscaceres marcoscaceres deleted the p466 branch August 31, 2015 04:53
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants