- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:14:54 +0100
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:54:08 +0100, Nicholas C. Zakas <html at nczonline.net> wrote: > If the true purpose of the irrelevant attribute is to aid in > accessibility, then I think the name is completely wrong. The term > "irrelevant" is confusing because, as I stated before, why would anyone > include content in a page that is irrelevant? What you really need is a > way to say "this is relevant only for non-visual UA's". Perhaps a better > attribute name would be "nonvisual"? The attribute, as explained in the specification (maybe it's not clear enough?) is intended for dynamic applications where you already have <section>s in the page for several steps, but only one of those <section>s is currently relevant. The rest is marked "irrelevant" until the user completes some action. This is a totally different case from the one you seem to be worried about. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Friday, 29 February 2008 11:14:54 UTC