- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 06:42:10 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12334
--- Comment #3 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2011-03-19 06:42:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Because the spec says that <a> is semantically an hyperlink.
It is only "semantically a hyperlink" - "REPRESENTS a hyperlink" - when it
contains @href:
"If the a element has an href attribute, **then**
it represents a hyperlink (a hypertext anchor)."
There is another thing which <a> always is, however: It is always 'interactive
content', even without the @href, see:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/content-models.html#interactive-content
But I suppose that you are not after changing *that* detail.
> Turning an html4 <a name> into a <a id> would make it a
> named anchor, violating the semantics defined in the spec.
QUESTION:
Would that solve you concern if the spec stated that an <a
id="">*</a>(anchor with the @id attribute) "REPRESENTS a named anchor"?
(I *do* support such a change.)
NOTES to convince the editor (Ian) to make such a specification:
FIRSTLY: Spec forbids 'target, rel, media, hreflang, and type'
unless @href is present. But @id is not forbidden.
SECONDLY: Spec contains one example where it shows how one
can use an <a> element WITHOUT any @href.
PROPOSAL: add @id to that example.
THIRDLY: @name is actually "obsolete but conforming"
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/obsolete.html#obsolete-but-conforming-features
Hence the "old" semantics are actually not clearly unpresent in HTML5.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 19 March 2011 06:42:13 UTC