- From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:26:02 +0100
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, James Graham wrote: > >><p>The correct answer is <ref target="#correct" />) All of the above</p> >> >>Getting a decent backwards compatibility story seems, uh, non-trivial at >>the least. Of course this is true of CSS3 generated content as well but >>that doesn't seem to bother people so much... > > > I like your idea. I don't know that there realy is a back-compat problem, > we could just say that it accepts text content, so you could write: > > <p>The correct answer is <ref target="#correct">f</ref> All of the > above</p> > > ...until such time as enough browsers support <ref> that you don't worry > anymore; since the answer number is (at least in this case) just > additional information (the answer is given right there too) it isn't a > huge problem if it is lost. Yeah, I suppose that would be good enough. > BTW I'd be tempted to suggest that the attribute on <ref> be for="" and [...] > for consistency with <label for=""> and <output for=""> -- what do > you think? Well it sounds a bit odd - I think the refernce is the other way around to <label> - <ref to=""> is less backwards sounding. But I guess it's basically consistent with <output>. Either is better than target though. > that it take an IDREF rather than a URI, to avoid any chance that people > might try to refer to things in other documents and expect it to work Yes, for sure. -- "It seems to be a constant throughout history: In every period, people believed things that were just ridiculous, and believed them so strongly that you would have gotten in terrible trouble for saying otherwise." -- http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2005 09:26:02 UTC