Re: "placeholder link"

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:14:01 +0200, Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl> wrote:

>> Why not? What's wrong with <a>?
>
> It's semantically wrong.

We can define the semantics for elements.

> [...]
>
>> It's conforming HTML4.
>
> Sure, but we're trying to move to HTML5 for a reason aren't we? ;)
>
> (Btw, I hardly know SGML, but might it not be that that was the only  
> reason
> <a> needed to be considered valid in HTML 4?)

HTML4 says:

    Authors may also create an A element that specifies no anchors, i.e.,
    that doesn't specify href, name, or id. Values for these attributes may
    be set at a later time through scripts.

      -- http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#h-12.2

Blank <a>s are explicitly allowed and pretty much represent placeholders  
that you can turn into links or anchors later on. I don't see why you  
think this is harmful.

>> It's shorter than <span>
>
> I don't think three characters weigh up against the semantic argument.

I agree that three characters are not much to worry about, but I don't  
understand the semantic argument.

> [...]
>
>> and the stylesheet rules will be simpler.
>
> How? Going with Lachlan's example, how is
>
> menu a { /* Styles for current page */ }
> menu a:link { /* Styles for other links */ }
>
> simpler than:
>
> menu span { /* Styles for current page */ }
> menu a:link { /* Styles for other links */ }

You may have rules that are common for both. e.g.

    menu a { display:block; border:solid; }
    menu a:link { background:lime; }

...vs:

    menu span { display:block; border:solid; }
    menu a:link { display:block; border:solid; background:lime; }

> [...]

-- 
Simon Pieters

Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 14:09:20 UTC