- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:01:45 +0100
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, public-html@w3.org
Tab Atkins Jr., Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:03:54 -0600: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Leif Halvard Silli: @declare vs @hidden vs other names >> (1) Regarding "legacy meaning", then regardless of whether an author >> has heard about it today, @declare exists in HTML4, and HTML4 is >> available online and described in thousands of tutorials - for example >> w3schools.com [1]. By replacing @hidden by @declare, we make HTML5 >> smaller - since it removes @declare from the obsolete features sections. > > That's basically zero benefit. Disagreement recorded. > In the end it's probably negative > benefit, because <object> has a special (legacy) meaning for @declare > that other elements won't share. If @declare on object is changed to > mean the same thing as @declare on other elements, then there will be > tutorials on the web talking about the old sense which may be > confusing. The only functional difference between HTML4's object@declare and HTML5's @declare/@hidden is that an element of the latter kind does not _automatically_ become visible if one follows a link to such an element. That is: Unless we would change the HTML5 in this regard. Since no UAs seems to support @declare the way it is specified in HTML4, it should not be very dangerous to change it. >> (2) Regarding "decipher what it does", then I claim that "the vast >> majority of authors are similar to me" in finding that "hidden" does >> [not] make anyone decipher _correctly_ what it means. It is a _feature_ >> that authors has to make some effort in order to understand what it does >> and means. > > I think that @hidden is a much better description than @declare. I repeat (with your words): "the vast majority of authors" finds @hidden misleading. But - OK - let us consider your justification: > What are you declaring? The element itself. @declare declares that the element is only declared. > The possibility of confusion with @hidden has been documented, Indeed. > but the error there is relatively small Depends on what "possibility of confusion" covers. > - some people may think it hides the element only from visual UAs. > That's a problem, but at least their thinking is on the right track. Since when did it become a positive thing to be misleading? A misleading feature can not justifiably be described as possible to decipher, but should rather be described as very easy to decipher wrongly. I maintain that it is better - especially with this edgy feature - if authors have to acquaint themselves with the feature through documentation rather than being mislead by an only seemingly transparent name. I also suppose that the feature is more important than the name. If the feature is any useful at all - and supported by UAs, then authors will not have any trouble in finding out about it. >> Thirdly, I think you should consider that we are debating a feature >> that is proposed to be deleted and that it is could be useful to >> consider if @declare would have a higher chance of becoming a amicable >> solution. > > The issue concerning the removal of @hidden has nothing to do with the > name, though. It's a philosophical objection. One of the things I had in mind was strategic: @declare does not go away from HTML - it has just been obsoleted. Hence, the prospect for the feature, if you would change its name to @declare could - perhaps - increase. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 29 January 2010 23:02:20 UTC