W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > April 2011

[whatwg] abbr inside of option

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 22:34:24 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1104282233450.25791@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Jens O. Meiert wrote:
> > >
> > > Just curious: What is the reasoning behind the option element not 
> > > being able to contain abbr elements?
> >
> > What problem would this solve?
> 
> I think this question came up a few times, also in the context of the 
> ?title? element; to try a very quick abstraction, it seems logical 
> that the content model of every non-void HTML element (with the only 
> exception of form elements?) should allow (most) phrasing content.
> 
> Having asked the question too for ?title? at some point the 
> reasoning is that you could not express the meaning of these elements? 
> contents otherwise. Or, why should ?<h1><abbr>HTML</abbr></h1>? be 
> acceptable but ?<title><abbr>HTML</abbr></title>? not be 
> permitted?in both cases, ?HTML? is an abbreviation. (No need to 
> explain the situation around the ?title? element again, I just like 
> the example.)

Ah, ok.

In that case, the restriction for both is for the same reason: it's to 
reduce the author's assumption that these elements will have any effect. 
In practice, they will not; UAs will often implement these elements using 
platform features that only accept a raw string.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 28 April 2011 15:34:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:48:03 GMT