- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 23:55:17 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- cc: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, Barry McMullin <barry.mcmullin@dcu.ie>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
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