- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:00:16 -0800
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>, "Edward O'Connor" <hober0@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote: > 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. > > Rationale: > > (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. Aren't all nodes "stored" in the DOM? The difference with these nodes being that they are *just* stored, not visually or semantically visual. / Jonas
Received on Friday, 29 January 2010 18:01:09 UTC