- From: Ashley Sheridan <ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 23:28:32 +0100
On Tue, 2010-03-30 at 23:44 +0200, Christoph P?per wrote: > If you think about various syntax variants of wiki systems they?ve got one thing in common that makes them preferable to direct HTML input: easy links! (Local ones at least, whatever that means.) The best known example is probably double square brackets as in Mediawiki, the engine that powers the Wikimediaverse. A link to another article on the same wiki is as simple as ?[[Foo]]?, where HTML would have needed ?<a href="Foo">Foo</a>?. > > I wonder whether HTML could and should provide some sort of similar shortening, i.e. ?<a href>Foo</a>? or even, just maybe, ?<a>Foo</a>?. The UA would append the string content, properly encoded, to the base Web address as the hyperlink?s target, thus behave as had it encounters ?<a href="Foo">Foo</a>?. > > I prefer the binary toggle role of the ?href? attribute, although it doesn?t work well in the XML serialisation, because it provides better compatibility with existing content and when I see or write ?<a>Bar</a>? I rather think of the origin of that element name, ?anchor?. So I expect it to be equivalent to ?<a id>Bar</a>? and ?<a name>Bar</a>? which would be shortcuts for ?<a id="Bar">Bar</a>?. > > PS: Square brackets aren?t that simple actually, because on many keyboard layouts they?re not easy to input and might not be found on keytops at all. > PPS: The serialisation difference is not that important, because XML, unlike HTML, isn?t intended to be written by hand anyway. I think to me <a>foo</a> would indicate it is a named anchor in a page. Are all UA's intelligent enough to be able to accurately recognise any form of URL? Also, in XHTML the tag would look like <a href="href">foo</a>. And, shouldn't links be as semantic as possible? Consider these two: * find the latest spec at <a href="http://www.somespecsite.com">http://www.somespecsite.com</a> * get <a href="http://www.somespecsite.com">the latest spec</a> In my opinion, the second one is far more semantic, and is what I prefer to use on anything I put together. The HTML spec should encourage the best practices, and making shorter link tags that actually take a step backwards in the world of semantic markup just seems a little foolish. Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20100330/f5da4ad6/attachment.htm>
Received on Tuesday, 30 March 2010 15:28:32 UTC