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: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:00:16 -0800
Message-ID: <63df84f1001291000g7c87cbcexdeca9d7a0804676b@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>, "Edward O'Connor" <hober0@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Leif Halvard Silli
<xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:
> Maciej Stachowiak, Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:14:55 -0800:
>> On Jan 16, 2010, at 6:44 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Karl Dubost:
>
>>>> What a search engine should do?
>>>
>>> Ignore it.
>>>
>>>> What a wysiwyg authoring tool should do?
>>>
>>> Ignore it.
>
>> The original name was "irrelevant", but that was hard to spell and
>> hard to understand (flags with negative names tend to be confusing).
>
> @stored (or similar) sounds like the name you are looking for.
>
> Rationale:
>
> (1) irrelevant,hidden,conceal (Karl's proposal) are mysterious names
> which all raise the question "irrelevant,hidden,concealed from what?".
> While @stored simply tells that the element is stored (in the DOM).
> Something which is just stored is of course *not* in use, without being
> irrelevant. (Concealed has of course some of the same meaning.)
>
> (2) The spec draft says that "it indicates that the element is not yet,
> or is no longer, relevant". In other words, the element is just stored
> for future (re)use or for convenience.
>
> (3) "stored" is a positive word: Authors should be familiar with
> storing things directly in the code. Something which is "stored" should
> without question be possible to make visible in a WYSIWYG [or a What
> You Hear Is What You Get] tool. And something which is stored should of
> course not be "ignored" by search engines (they might handle it similar
> to how they handle code stored inside HTML comments and the like -
> although elements with @stored may be more relevant than commented code
> ...)
>
> I do not by this express my support or disapproval of the
> @stored/hidden attribute - there might be reasons to not have it. I
> just say that I think the name "stored" eventually would be a more
> relevant and less mysterious name.

Aren't all nodes "stored" in the DOM? The difference with these nodes
being that they are *just* stored, not visually or semantically
visual.

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 29 January 2010 18:01:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:00 GMT