- From: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:11:04 -0500
- To: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Cc: Patrick H Lauke <splintered@gmail.com>,Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
At 05:06 PM 1/30/2009 -0600, Robert J Burns wrote: >>[much discussion about logic of "<a> as anchor" elided...] > >Well I don't want to send this off in a tangent to other HTML5 >problems, so I'll just say this is up to the author. There are many >definitions of important and they don't all mean the "important" intended >by the redefinition of the 'strong' element. In this case I simply meant >important enough to want to link to the phrase from one or many other >documents. So my example is for cases where no other element is suitable >to markup the phrase. In fact for cases where the phrase would not even be >marked up other than the need for it to serve as the destination anchor of >a link relation. An <a> with only a name attribute is the anchor of a hypertext link. The type of link is anonymous unless it can be discovered by application convention in other attribute values, such as the CLASS attribute. It is useful to deploy anonymous anchors at various stages in the editorial cycle, and other attributes may be employed to control behaviour or record effectivity. There is no need for us to presume the eventual use to which such elements may be put during a document's development cycle. That is, no logic compels us to remove that which has been since the beginning and is covered by countless extant texts and courses. Surely we should indicate that name is deprecated in favour of ID, but for completeness we should catalog even the deprecated elements and attributes -- perhaps with a link (so as to reduce clutter) as Ian recently did for the common attributes.
Received on Saturday, 31 January 2009 00:11:28 UTC