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

Re: ISSUE-95 hidden - Chairs Solicit Proposals

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 02:34:08 +0100
To: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100130023408518836.714905bb@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Joe D Williams, Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:36:37 -0800:

Is <hidden> better than @declare/@hidden?

[...]
>>>>>>>> The hidden attribute is meant to mark a DOM subtree pruned 
>>>>>>>> from all presentations on all media.
> 
> I am reaching some due to the <iframe with @sandbox and 
> <sandbox></sandbox>  [...] so why not an element?

And then you proposed two alternatives to @hidden/@declare:

> <head>
> <mystuff [space separated strings representing name.id containers 
> that are to be hidden as quoted above] />
> </head>
  [...]
> Or, in the body
> 
> <hidden>
> <htmlstuffthatshouldnotbeincluded... >
> </hidden>

A <hidden> element could not live up to the benefits of 
@hidden/@declare, as it would meddle with the DOM. (E.g. consider 
<hidden><caption></caption></hidden> - doesn't work.) Keeping a list of 
the hidden elements in the <head> would not meddle with the DOM - but 
such an extra indirection would complicate things severely.

Another issue to consider w.r.t. @hidden/@declare is the earlier 
discussed the autoplay feature of <video>/<audio>: What happens to 
<video> if it is @hidden? E.g. does it still load? And so on.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Saturday, 30 January 2010 01:34:42 GMT

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