W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2005

[whatwg] [WA1] <ol type=a> is semantic

From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:26:02 +0100
Message-ID: <434D391A.5090902@cam.ac.uk>
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, James Graham wrote:
> 
>><p>The correct answer is <ref target="#correct" />) All of the above</p>
>>
>>Getting a decent backwards compatibility story seems, uh, non-trivial at 
>>the least. Of course this is true of CSS3 generated content as well but 
>>that doesn't seem to bother people so much...
> 
> 
> I like your idea. I don't know that there realy is a back-compat problem, 
> we could just say that it accepts text content, so you could write:
> 
>    <p>The correct answer is <ref target="#correct">f</ref> All of the 
>    above</p>
> 
> ...until such time as enough browsers support <ref> that you don't worry 
> anymore; since the answer number is (at least in this case) just 
> additional information (the answer is given right there too) it isn't a 
> huge problem if it is lost.

Yeah, I suppose that would be good enough.

> BTW I'd be tempted to suggest that the attribute on <ref> be for="" and 
[...]
 > for consistency with <label for=""> and <output for=""> -- what do
 > you think?

Well it sounds a bit odd - I think the refernce is the other way around 
to <label> - <ref to=""> is less backwards sounding. But I guess it's 
basically consistent with <output>. Either is better than target though.

> that it take an IDREF rather than a URI, to avoid any chance that people 
> might try to refer to things in other documents and expect it to work

Yes, for sure.

-- 
"It seems to be a constant throughout history: In every period, people 
believed things that were just ridiculous, and believed them so strongly 
that you would have gotten in terrible trouble for saying otherwise."

-- http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2005 09:26:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:43 UTC