W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2007

Re: "placeholder link"

From: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 19:36:46 +1000
Message-ID: <5f37426b0706250236u6cc7239dye7cb339e0d55b10a@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Simon Pieters" <zcorpan@gmail.com>
Cc: "Sander Tekelenburg" <st@isoc.nl>, public-html@w3.org

I agree and as a bonus this proposal is aligned with <a> in XHTML2
where its "identical in semantics to the span element."
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-hypertext.html#edef_hypertext_a

It's @href, @rel, etc. that make it meaningful. Omit them and you've
got a blank element (which you don't need to use if you don't want
to). I don't see it causing any issues though.



On 6/25/07, Simon Pieters <zcorpan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 04:24:10 +0200, Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl> wrote:
>
> > [...] So why exactly should
> > <a>content</a> be defined as conforming?
>
> Why not? What's wrong with <a>? It's conforming HTML4. It's shorter than
> <span> and the stylesheet rules will be simpler.
>
> Saying that your cleanup tool will mess it up can go for anything. Scripts
> might even break if you mess around with comments or whitespace...
>
> --
> Simon Pieters
>
>
Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 09:36:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:01 GMT