- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 22:34:24 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Jens O. Meiert wrote: > > > > > > Just curious: What is the reasoning behind the option element not > > > being able to contain abbr elements? > > > > What problem would this solve? > > I think this question came up a few times, also in the context of the > ?title? element; to try a very quick abstraction, it seems logical > that the content model of every non-void HTML element (with the only > exception of form elements?) should allow (most) phrasing content. > > Having asked the question too for ?title? at some point the > reasoning is that you could not express the meaning of these elements? > contents otherwise. Or, why should ?<h1><abbr>HTML</abbr></h1>? be > acceptable but ?<title><abbr>HTML</abbr></title>? not be > permitted?in both cases, ?HTML? is an abbreviation. (No need to > explain the situation around the ?title? element again, I just like > the example.) Ah, ok. In that case, the restriction for both is for the same reason: it's to reduce the author's assumption that these elements will have any effect. In practice, they will not; UAs will often implement these elements using platform features that only accept a raw string. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 28 April 2011 15:34:24 UTC