[whatwg] Make quoted attributes a conformance criteria

[Eduard Pascual]

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Rimantas Liubertas<rimantas at gmail.com> wrote:
>> However, the quotation marks being *sometimes* optional is quite
>> dangerous, since an author needs to exactly remember when they are
>> needed and when they aren't; and using always quotation marks does
>> avoid this problem.
>
> If author does not remember he can always use quotes and avoid
> this problem. I like the idea of having option to omit quotes valid
> for those who remember.
And this is why I was suggesting to mention on the spec that, since
quotes are always allowed, the safest choice in case of doubt is to
use them; rather than making it a hard requirement. For validators, I
think the best approach would be to produce some warning (not an
error) for missing quotes, probably omitting the safest cases (such as
numeric attributes, @type in <input> (which is always a single word),
and so on); so authors that go through the hassle of validating their
pages to detect issues can be made aware of the unquoted attributes
that may bring troubles in the future (ie: when updating such
attributes).

>> Again, the point is not that *sometimes* it is safe to omit the
>> quotes. The issue is with remembering when it is safe and when it is
>> unsafe.
>
> I think you overestimate the danger.
> So my vote is against such a requirement.
And I think you understimate it. I have seen newbies do really
horrendous things. Murphy is omnipresent on the web.
Anyway, I don't think "voting" on this list makes any sense. HTML5 is
not a democratic process, but a totalitarian one with the core of the
WHATWG at the top (see
http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#How_does_the_WHATWG_work.3F) and Ian
as their "hand". So it's not a matter of voting; but of convincing Ian
to change the spec, or to convince the WHATWG members to replace him
with someone who will change the spec (the later is quite unlikely to
happen anyway).