- From: carmen <_@whats-your.name>
- Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 16:27:14 -0400
On Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 08:52:36PM +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 06:03:02 +0100, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman at disruptive-innovations.com> wrote: > >>In any case not all <a>'s are hyperlinks so for your meaning of semantic they should also not be automatically hyperlinks (or anchors if you wish). I am pretty sure that existence of 'href' > >>attribute is what creates semantic meaning of <a> for you. So why <a> cannot be <b href> or <c href>? > > > >Let me also play the devil (I love it) : a feature is not trashable > >only because it comes from XHTML 2.0 :-) > > I agree. One of the reasons HTML5 has <section> and redefined <h1>-<h6>. > > > >Here, a global href is a really cool idea, we should have done it in > >HTML 4 but we were too blind to see. > > What are the problems it solves? To my mind introducing it will just break compatibility and complicate implementations for no apparent benefit. You also get to deal with silly cases like: suppose one is building a GUI with solely <canvas> elements. say you have a doorway, clicking on it opens into the room, which is another page. forcing this stuff into onclick() just because href= is invalid, decreases scrapability/accessibility. is one supposed to just wrap canvas polygons in <a>s or something? > > <input type=checkbox href=http://www.opera.com/> > > > HTML5 already redefines <a> to be hyperlink or a placeholder for one (this should address your concern raised in another e-mail). The idea of <a name=""> is not mentioned in the draft and isn't even > conforming (although I suppose user agents will be required to support it). Any element can be a link target much like in HTML4. > > > -- > Anne van Kesteren > <http://annevankesteren.nl/> > <http://www.opera.com/> >
Received on Sunday, 11 March 2007 13:27:14 UTC