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

Re: ISSUE-95 hidden - Chairs Solicit Proposals

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 05:21:16 +0000 (UTC)
To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1001170515020.3958@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
>
> I think the "dom" prefixes are confusing here, and "pruned" sounds 
> weird.  Something like "meaningless" or "ignore" might be better, if 
> "hidden" sounds too visual -- I think it does, now that you point it 
> out.  "ignore" or "ignored" might better convey the intent.

The spec originally used "irrelevant" (with inspiration from XForms) but 
overwhelming feedback indicated that "hidden" was better, both in terms of 
ease of use, and in terms of people getting the general intent of the 
attribute. Despite the occasional confusion, people seem to misunderstand 
hidden="" far more rarely than they did irrelevant="".

If anyone has any suggestions of examples or anti-examples that could be 
added to the spec to illustrate the correct interpretation of the 
attribute, please feel free to file bugs. I'd be happy to elaborate on the 
text in the spec, I just lack inspiration for how to do it in an effective 
way. (It's easy to come up with examples that confuse more than help.)

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 17 January 2010 05:21:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:57 GMT