- From: Sander Tekelenburg <tekelenb@euronet.nl>
- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 04:35:19 +0100
At 22:08 +0000 UTC, on 2006-03-09, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote: [...] >> the requirements on attribute occurrence are very lax and >> sectional elements are not required to have any content at all. These >> requirements seem very inconsistent in spirit to me. > > Yeah, I haven't really thought these through yet. > > Here are some of the things I'm worried about: > > * It should be possible for scripts to add content to placeholder > elements without those placeholder elements being non-conformant. > This is a very useful programming idiom, not least of which because > adding content to an existing element (whether attributes or child > nodes) is a lot easier than adding the element in the first place. Wouldn't a <placeholder> element be more appropriate then? > * It should be possible to have a group of pages that have a similar > structure, with elements annotated as necessary. For example, a menu > list could be the same on each page, but with the currently loaded > page simply not having the "href" attribute on its link, or some such. I won't claim there might not be valid cases, but this seems like a bad example to me. If something is not a link it should not be marked-up as such. How useful is it to the user to provide a hyperlink that points nowhere? -- Sander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/>
Received on Thursday, 9 March 2006 19:35:19 UTC