Re: ISSUE 30 @longdesc use cases

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Elements that are not hidden should not link to or refer to elements
> >> > that are hidden.
> >>
> >> This, however I don't agree with. Why should this not be permitted? What
> >> problem is solved by forbidding this?
> >
> > It solves the problem of someone accidentally linking to a section that is
> > hidden (which they obviously wouldn't do on purpose, since the hidden
> > section is by definition irrelevant, so linking to it would be pointless),
> > and then realising their mistake when the validator points it out.
> >
> > In your suggestion, the text is not irrelevant. It's very relevant.
> 
> This is somewhat circular reasoning. You're saying that it's obviously
> a mistake to link to inside a @hidden subtree because it's disallowed.

No, I'm saying it's obviously a mistake to link to irrelevant content, and 
that content inside a block marked by a hidden="" attribute is by 
definition irrelevant.

Then I'm saying it's not allowed, so as to help authors using validators 
to catch this mistake.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Monday, 23 August 2010 23:55:48 UTC