There is some merit to the criticisms, though they were given with a total lack of tact. Web standards are important and define multiple ways you can provide cu

There is some merit to the criticisms, though they were given with a total lack of tact. Web standards are important and define multiple ways you can provide custom attributes while still working with valid code and not stepping all over the platform namespace. By using invalid HTML this makes the job of web standardization harder, plus users of this code have to practice writing invalid code and hope the tool fixes it. There's just simply nothing gained from this design choice when making it valid and future proof would have been just as easy. I totally agree with the "ignore the haters" attitude, but I am also in agreement with the criticism. Maybe this can be an opportunity to improve it and have it work with valid HTML and then even more good comes from this mis-handled issue!