From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: None (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=8.23.224.61; helo=out.smtp-auth.no-ip.com; envelope-from=kevin@carhart.net; receiver= Received: from out.smtp-auth.no-ip.com (smtp-auth.no-ip.com [8.23.224.61]) by hurricane.the-brannons.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1B9D779FB for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 17:21:37 -0800 (PST) X-No-IP: carhart.net@noip-smtp X-Report-Spam-To: abuse@no-ip.com Received: from carhart.net (unknown [99.52.200.227]) (Authenticated sender: carhart.net@noip-smtp) by smtp-auth.no-ip.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B13FD3A3 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 17:23:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from carhart.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by carhart.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id vAN1N31n010262 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 17:23:03 -0800 Received: from localhost (kevin@localhost) by carhart.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) with ESMTP id vAN1N3eZ010255 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 17:23:03 -0800 Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 17:23:03 -0800 (PST) From: Kevin Carhart To: Edbrowse-dev@lists.the-brannons.com In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20171016072958.eklhad@comcast.net> <20171022104855.eklhad@comcast.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.03 (LRH 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: [Edbrowse-dev] data-* attributes X-BeenThere: edbrowse-dev@lists.the-brannons.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.24 Precedence: list List-Id: Edbrowse Development List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 01:21:37 -0000 >> This is a real world website, so I guess I should interpret undefined as >> true, and move forward with the link. I think this is probably true, but it might or might not be relevant to look at whether this actually is a real world website. I mean, at one level it is, but this is a keywords and SEO-related website, like a link farm for gaming Google's page rank. You can tell because the relationship of the content to the word "orange" is not all there somehow. Does this matter when all you are assessing is the prevalence of their technical phrasing?? Maybe not, but the perversity or orneryness in terms of the site authors' goals might reflect on whether it's a good proxy for the world.. of course if the world is also perverse and ornery then you're fine.