What is the issue with the HTML Standard?
This is a split-off from #10309 (see also openui/open-ui#1136), to specifically resolve on the name of the attribute. The current proposal uses interesttarget=target, but that is kind of a carryover from popovertarget. It seems that the new commandfor attribute might be the better pattern to follow? If so, perhaps a better name for this attribute would be interestfor=target? That's a bit semantically weird, since the "interest" is actually in the thing that has the attribute, not the target element, so "interest for" isn't strictly correct. Then again, if commandfor means "this element issues a command for the target", then interestfor could mean "this element registers/signals interest for the target". So maybe it's fine.
Other choices might be interesttriggerfor=target or interesttriggers=target. I don't much like those, as compared to interestfor, but they're a bit more descriptive.
I'd like to resolve on the name sooner rather than later, to avoid painful renames in the future. The name of the attribute might also have carryover affects on some of the CSS properties, depending on how that bikeshedding goes.
What is the issue with the HTML Standard?
This is a split-off from #10309 (see also openui/open-ui#1136), to specifically resolve on the name of the attribute. The current proposal uses
interesttarget=target, but that is kind of a carryover frompopovertarget. It seems that the newcommandforattribute might be the better pattern to follow? If so, perhaps a better name for this attribute would beinterestfor=target? That's a bit semantically weird, since the "interest" is actually in the thing that has the attribute, not thetargetelement, so "interest for" isn't strictly correct. Then again, ifcommandformeans "this element issues a command for the target", theninterestforcould mean "this element registers/signals interest for the target". So maybe it's fine.Other choices might be
interesttriggerfor=targetorinteresttriggers=target. I don't much like those, as compared tointerestfor, but they're a bit more descriptive.I'd like to resolve on the name sooner rather than later, to avoid painful renames in the future. The name of the attribute might also have carryover affects on some of the CSS properties, depending on how that bikeshedding goes.