[whatwg] @Irrelevant [was: Re: Thoughts on HTML 5]

On Mar 1, 2008, at 4:05 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:

> This sounds like a good idea to me.
>
> First off 'irrelevant' is pretty hard to spell for non-native  
> english speakers (go sweden!).
>
> Second, the elements are in fact relevant to the page since in all  
> likelihood they will be used later. 'ignore' feels like a better  
> description since it's weaker. We want to acknowledges the existance  
> of the element, but tells you to not pay attention to it.
>
> Though I might be making making the last part up given that I fall  
> into the first category :)

I like ignore and omit as options. irrelevant is indeed awkward to  
spell.

  - Maciej

>
>
> / Jonas
>
> Nicholas C. Zakas wrote:
>> From this thread, it seems like the true purpose of irrelevant is  
>> to add to HTML the logical equivalent of display:none in CSS. If  
>> that is true, then I'd agree with Jeff that renaming the attribute  
>> "ignore" or "omit" is a good idea. Can anyone either confirm or  
>> deny the purpose of this attribute as the following description:
>> "This attribute is used to indicate part of a document whose  
>> content is not considered primary to the page. In visual UAs,  
>> elements with this attribute are not rendered; in non-visual UAs,  
>> elements with this attribute are not read as part of the normal  
>> content flow."
>> Thoughts?
>> -Nicholas
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Jeff Walden <jwalden at MIT.EDU>
>> To: Nicholas C. Zakas <html at nczonline.net>
>> Cc: James Graham <jg307 at cam.ac.uk>; whatwg at lists.whatwg.org
>> Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 11:41:41 AM
>> Subject: Re: [whatwg] @Irrelevant [was: Re: Thoughts on HTML 5]
>> Nicholas C. Zakas wrote:
>> > If the true purpose of the irrelevant attribute is to aid in
>> > accessibility, then I think the name is completely wrong. The term
>> > "irrelevant" is confusing because, as I stated before, why would  
>> anyone
>> > include content in a page that is irrelevant? What you really  
>> need is a
>> > way to say "this is relevant only for non-visual UA's". Perhaps a  
>> better
>> > attribute name would be "nonvisual"?
>> Unnecessarily suggests a particular medium of display; I suggest  
>> the shorter alternatives ignore(d) or omit(ted) if you really want  
>> the functionality.
>> The biggest problem with the attribute is the spec doesn't  
>> sufficiently clearly describe the motivation for it; I suggest  
>> mentioning the preloading of iframes as such an example (they don't  
>> load/render if they're display:none, so it's either  
>> visibility:hidden (?) or launching the element into outer space  
>> offscreen with position/top/left), perhaps in an informative  
>> paragraph.
>> Jeff
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!  
>> Search. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping 
>> >
>

Received on Thursday, 6 March 2008 19:11:20 UTC