W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > January 2006

[whatwg] Should ID be required for <DFN>?

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:55:43 +1100
Message-ID: <43C8D8AF.3030003@lachy.id.au>
Eugene T.S. Wong wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 14:22:12 -0800, Lachlan Hunt 
> <lachlan.hunt at lachy.id.au> wrote:
> 
>> Eugene T.S. Wong wrote:
>>> I read the specification on <DFN>, and I really like it...
>>>  Some manuscripts will need to refer to a <DFN> that is on another 
>>> page. Will there be a way of doing that?
>>
>> <a href="otherpage.html#id-of-dfn">foo bar</a>
> 
> That would require making an ID for the element. How would users and 
> developers access definitions without an ID?

Link to the nearest anchor in the relevant section of the page or, at 
the very least, just to the page itself.  It's not an ideal solution, 
but there's not much else that can be done.

> Perhaps we should allow for something like: <A 
> HREF="mypage#'DHD'>click</A> or <A HREF="mypage#'dial home 
> device'>click</A>.

That looks like an attempt to redefine how fragment identifiers work for 
HTML and XML documents, which is out of scope for this spec.

> Another problem is that if we use IDs, then we end up replicating 
> information. For example:
> 
> <P>asdf asdf <DFN ID="dialhomedevice"><ABBR TITLE="Dial Home 
> Device">DHD</ABBR></DFN> QWER QER.</P>

I'm confused.  The subject of this thread you started is "Should ID be 
required for <DFN>?", yet now when a suggestion requires the use of an 
ID, you point out holes in it by trying to show that the required use of 
an ID has problems.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Saturday, 14 January 2006 02:55:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:25 UTC