- From: Sander Tekelenburg <tekelenb@euronet.nl>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 18:26:16 +0100
At 10:20 +0100 UTC, on 2006-01-10, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > Quoting Sander Tekelenburg <tekelenb at euronet.nl>: >>>> Exactly. That would in fact be an implementation of display:meta. >>>>Rendering >>>> the contents of TITLE attributes in a Status Bar is too. >>> >>> No they're not. They're implementations of the |rel| and |title| >>> attributes. >> >> How? I don't see the HTML spec stating how rel or title attributes must be >> presented. > > Well no, but neither would 'display:meta', right? Well, not in minute detail, but it *would* indicate that the content should be presented outside of the body. So yes, it would definitely say something about how to present something. Making the contents of a title attribute *accessible*, in any form, would be an implementation of HTML. But the way that access is *presented* would be an implementation of CSS. > The HTML specification does > define that they are there and that UAs can do something with them, > like making > them available to the end user. That you can also style the element based on > those attributes is another thing. Exactly. > Even if I would show the <title> element using 'head, title { display:block >}' > it would still keep its semantics. With your proposal of 'display:meta' it > would not I assume. I don't see why something would lose its semantics simply by suggesting a certain presentation. It would only change presentation, not meaning. A navigation menu is still a navigation menu, whether it is presented 'in-body', or outside of it. Looks to me you can compare this with the semantics of a title attribute not changing when it is presented in a "Status Bar" or when it is is displayed as for example [title]:after {content: " (" attr(title) ") "}. -- Sander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/>
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2006 09:26:16 UTC