- 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