W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

Re: ISSUE-95 hidden - Chairs Solicit Proposals

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:54:12 -0800
Message-ID: <63df84f1001141454v65e2ebe4v75cd96b2027ed89@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Edward O'Connor" <hober0@gmail.com>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Remove/Discard the Hidden Attribute"
> [...]
>> If no Change Proposals are written by February 14, 2010 this issue will be
>> closed without prejudice.
>
> I'm willing to write a zero-edit counter-proposal, though I won't
> bother to unless someone actually writes a change proposal for this
> issue.

Thanks Edward for stepping up. For what it's worth I'd support a
zero-edit proposal. My main reason for liking the 'hidden', over the
other suggestions in bug 8118 (using CSS in combination with
aria-hidden), is that the 'hidden' attribute carries semantic
information. CSS is supposed to be a styling language, and thus not an
appropriate place to put semantic information. aria attributes, if I
understand things correctly, are intended to carry accessibility
specific information, and thus also not appropriate to carry semantic
information.

The semantic meaning of the hidden attribute carries the semantic
meaning that the element itself, and its descendents are irrelevant.
I.e. that the semantic meaning of the document are as if those
elements aren't there. Thus the two document-fragments have the same
semantic meaning:

<body>
  <p>This is some text</p>
  <form hidden action=""><input name=name><button type=submit>Send
your name</button></form>
</body>

<body>
  <p>This is some text</p>

</body>

/ Jonas
Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 22:55:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:12 UTC