W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: Behavior Attachment Redux, was Re: HTML element content models vs. components

From: Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:01:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEoffTANw4MEJyOLy7u3gKDfq9zYMD1uStoP9ZGhe1Rer-kFtA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>, Roland Steiner <rolandsteiner@chromium.org>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Dominic Cooney <dominicc@chromium.org>
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> If an author invents a new element, it doesn't matter what it inherits
> from. It won't have fallback behaviour, it won't have semantics that can
> be interpreted by search engines and accessibility tools, it won't have
> default renderings, and it won't allow for validation to catch authoring
> mistakes. I don't see what inheritance has to do with anything here.

Ian, apologies if you have answered this before and I haven't seen it,
but a (fairly brief) query didn't turn up anything for me: when is it
okay to create new elements? Obviously, we created a bunch for HTML 5
that don't have fallback behavior ...

It seems like it would be helpful to distinguish between "new"
elements that can be reasonably mapped onto existing elements'
semantics and elements that cannot; perhaps we can agree that elements
should be reused where possible, but that there should also be
mechanism for defining new elements otherwise?

-- Dirk
Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2011 01:02:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:36 UTC