W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

Re: ISSUE-95 hidden - Chairs Solicit Proposals

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:49:34 +0100
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100129164934470238.60cb3def@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Maciej Stachowiak, Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:14:55 -0800:
> On Jan 16, 2010, at 6:44 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Karl Dubost:

>>> What a search engine should do?
>> Ignore it.
>>> What a wysiwyg authoring tool should do?
>> Ignore it.

> The original name was "irrelevant", but that was hard to spell and 
> hard to understand (flags with negative names tend to be confusing).

@stored (or similar) sounds like the name you are looking for.


(1) irrelevant,hidden,conceal (Karl's proposal) are mysterious names 
which all raise the question "irrelevant,hidden,concealed from what?". 
While @stored simply tells that the element is stored (in the DOM). 
Something which is just stored is of course *not* in use, without being 
irrelevant. (Concealed has of course some of the same meaning.)

(2) The spec draft says that "it indicates that the element is not yet, 
or is no longer, relevant". In other words, the element is just stored 
for future (re)use or for convenience. 

(3) "stored" is a positive word: Authors should be familiar with 
storing things directly in the code. Something which is "stored" should 
without question be possible to make visible in a WYSIWYG [or a What 
You Hear Is What You Get] tool. And something which is stored should of 
course not be "ignored" by search engines (they might handle it similar 
to how they handle code stored inside HTML comments and the like - 
although elements with @stored may be more relevant than commented code 

I do not by this express my support or disapproval of the 
@stored/hidden attribute - there might be reasons to not have it. I 
just say that I think the name "stored" eventually would be a more 
relevant and less mysterious name.
leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 29 January 2010 15:50:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:08 UTC