- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:02:43 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- 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, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > 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. You still haven't answered the question what problem is solved by defining @hidden this way. But I guess I'll just file a bug instead as at least this discussion seems to have become circular :) / Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2010 00:03:38 UTC