feat: improvements on attribute & boolean/html

[PassionPenguin]

@chrisdavidmills a further update than #33386 - boolean attribute actually have an individual entry /Glossary/Boolean/HTML

• fixed: trimed down /Glossary/Attribute, moving the detailed information of boolean attribute onto /Glossary/Boolean/HTML
• fixed: out-dated information according to the HTML spec 2.3.2 under /Glossary/Boolean/HTML

• added: inter-glossary links

[github-actions]

Preview URLs

• /en-US/docs/Glossary/Attribute
• /en-US/docs/Glossary/Boolean/HTML

Flaws (2)

Note! 1 document with no flaws that don't need to be listed. 🎉

URL: /en-US/docs/Glossary/Attribute
Title: Attribute
Flaw count: 2

• macros:
  • /en-US/docs/Web/API/HTMLInputElement/placeholder does not exist
  • /en-US/docs/Web/API/HTMLInputElement/placeholder does not exist

External URLs (1)

URL: /en-US/docs/Glossary/Boolean/HTML
Title: Boolean attribute (HTML)

• https://html.spec.whatwg.org/ (1 time) (Note! This may be a new URL 👀)

(comment last updated: 2024-07-10 11:10:49)

[Josh-Cena]

The paragraph in the spec below your screenshot says what you removed in the content:

If the attribute is present, its value must either be the empty string or a value that is an ASCII case-insensitive match for the attribute's canonical name, with no leading or trailing whitespace.

This glossary entry was written less than 2 years ago, so it's definitely not outdated.

[PassionPenguin]

The paragraph in the spec below your screenshot says what you removed in the content:

If the attribute is present, its value must either be the empty string or a value that is an ASCII case-insensitive match for the attribute's canonical name, with no leading or trailing whitespace.

This glossary entry was written less than 2 years ago, so it's definitely not outdated.

Oops, that's correct. shall i do a cleanup right after.

[Josh-Cena]

The same comment as your other glossary updates: the content, in its current form, is correct and understandable. We would prefer to make as few changes to it as possible unless there are provable errors.

The changes I would personally like to see in this PR:

1. Remove the misleading implication that "attribute without equals sign" and "boolean attribute" have anything to do with each other. "Attribute without equals sign" is not necessarily boolean and boolean attribute is not necessarily specified without equals sign. I'm fine with a passing mention on the "attributes" page that "HTML attributes have types; for example there are boolean attributes, enumerated attributes, etc." but it doesn't tell you anything about the syntax.
2. The <input required> example is good and should indeed be moved to the "boolean" entry.
3. More related glossary terms links are good.

Apart from these, I would take all other changes as unnecessary, but I remain convincible. What I (and other content reviewers, as you have experienced) would prefer not to see is pure cosmetic text changes. It's best if all your changes are additive without changing existing content unless necessary.

[Josh-Cena]

Personal suggestion is we don't have to go so technical. "Canonical name" is just because HTML is case-insensitive, but we have never mentioned anything other than lowercase, and I would expect most readers to believe they can only be written lower-cased. I'm fine either way.

[Josh-Cena]

I have gone ahead and made some changes myself, which IMO are necessary before merging this PR. @PassionPenguin thank you for the work—this looks great! I have annoyed you enough so let's merge this now 😄

[PassionPenguin]

I have gone ahead and made some changes myself, which IMO are necessary before merging this PR. @PassionPenguin thank you for the work—this looks great! I have annoyed you enough so let's merge this now 😄

Thanks. Your and other reviewer's points on the reviewing process are reasonable and thanks for your kind review.

You are right, that I have made some many unnecessary changes to the content. Though some of them might have improved the content, many are unnecessary, and even breaks the content.

In this case, what I do not take enough care is having moved content from /Glossary/Attribute to /Glossary/Boolean/HTML without a second thought. Sincerely thanks and appreciations for the suggestions made.

p.s. in the last commit, I have added a macro link (in the main content). everything else looks great. Thanks for your work!