- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 16:20:09 +0000 (UTC)
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Matthew Raymond wrote: >> >> How is this different from a comment, then? > > You explained this very difference to me once. Comments may not exist in > the DOM for XHTML-compliant UAs. "Ignore", it both forms, provides a way > of commenting out code while still keeping it in the DOM for XHTML. Ok, so you are proposing a comment that will always remain in the DOM. What's the use case? (That's partly rhetorical; see below.) >> The only use it seems it could have would be to hide content from >> certain UAs (which UAs, it doesn't say). Since there is no link between >> this attribute and other features, it is unclear how it would be used. > > Why does it need a link between it and other attributes? You use it on > contents that you want ignored. Simple. If you want the content ignored, why are you putting it in the document? The point is that you _don't_ want it to be ignored. You want it to be ignored on WF2 UAs, and not in legacy UAs. So effectively it's a "conditional comment", except that the condition is "supports the <ignore> element" (or attribute, whichever). It is basically equivalent to <legacy value="Web Forms 2.0">. See: http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2004-July/000839.html -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2004 09:20:09 UTC