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

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

From: ROBO Design <robodesign@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 13:57:35 +0200
Message-ID: <op.s3c959gimapogm@localhost.localdomain>
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 12:55:43 +0200, Lachlan Hunt  
<lachlan.hunt at lachy.id.au> wrote:

> Eugene T.S. Wong wrote:
<...>
>
> 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.
>
<...>
>
> That looks like an attempt to redefine how fragment identifiers work for  
> HTML and XML documents, which is out of scope for this spec.
>
<...>
>
> 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.
>

The ID attribute should not be required for <dfn>.

One reasoning would be: dfn is a tag which has the semantical purpose to  
"tell" the UA that the enclosed text defines *something*. Therefore, you  
might not need to have a reference to this definition again. Forcing an ID  
is ... useless in this case. If you want to reference the definition, then  
use an ID (optionally).


-- 
http://www.robodesign.ro
ROBO Design - We bring you the future
Received on Saturday, 14 January 2006 03:57:35 UTC

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