3 ms·

> they encourage authors to make up random, nonstandard values for the attribute No, they are encouraging you to give more meaning to your fields. For the exam

> they encourage authors to make up random, nonstandard values for the attribute No, they are encouraging you to give more meaning to your fields. For the example given of a CRM app, using customer_email_address as the input field makes much more sense than using a standard value for email address, as the two fields are asking for different things: The latter always wants your email address, whereas the former wants the relevant email address for the record you're viewing/editing.

xg15 10y ago
But there is no guarantee all sites will use the same values or even give the values the same meaning: One might write "customer_email_address", another "e-mail-address-of-customer". A third one has separate input fields for the parts before and after the "@" and uses "email-address-name" and "email-address-host" respectively... So in the end, if everyone followed the advice and used "semantic" values, this would likely lead to the same problems that HTML already had with semantic class names, rel values and meta tags. The discussions about them fill mailing list archives. I don't see why all this should be repeated, even more so as the problem of semantically annotating your elements is already solved. But in this case it's even weirder as that was presented as a way to tell Chrome "please don't autocomplete". So if that's the real motivation, then sites are likely to just put some variant of "really-really-off", or just random strings in it without any regard to "semantics".