- From: Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:50:18 +0000
- To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- CC: www-html@w3.org
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote: > Is there a major semantic advantage to [allowing] "href" anywhere? That depends on one's perspective. From my perspective, it adds orthogonality to the language, which I regard as a Good Thing [tm]; in addition, it allows documents to become simpler : one no longer need wrap <A> tags around an element in order to permit it to function as a hyperlink. > Some browser vendors think it would be complex to overload elements with > additional functionality: > > http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2006-August/007179.html I am sure that it would, but if the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, then it is not unreasonable to ask that browser vendors invest the necessary effort. > What would be a good interface for nested links? > > <span href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML"><span > href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertext">HyperText</a> Markup > Language</span> More to the point, what benefit (if any) is gained by having nested links ? Just because something is syntactically possible does not mean that it should necessarily be exploited. Indeed, the specification might well state that documents with nested links are ill-formed. > Or elements that are both hyperlinked and have some other functionality? > > <submit submission="submit" > href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML"><label>Go!</label></input> Although I /think/ I understand your question, the above code looks ill-formed to me, and I will therefore defer answering until you have had time to clarify whether this is the example you meant to adduce. [Long snip, all pertaining to nested links which do not necessarily follow from the proposal to add "href" to the set of standard attributes inherited by all elements] > With respect to "img" alternative text, HTML5 has to define how to > serialize an HTML5 DOM parsed out of XML to text/html. > > If HTML5 allowed content of the img element to be used as alternative > text in the XML serialization, how would you suggest the following DOM > be serialized in text/html? [Snipped series of possibilities] I'm not sure we are discussing the same thing here. I am arguing that HTML 5 should stop carrying with it the baggage of earlier, arguably poorly thought out, standards and should rather have the courage to propose how things will be expressed /in the future/. By definition, this will require browsers to parse (and process) HTML 5 documents differently to how they parse and process documents conforming to earlier standards (and, of course, how they parse and process documents that lack a DOCTYPE directive and which therefore cannot be safely assumed to conform to any standards whatsoever). By so doing, HTML 5 could define the <IMG> element to be a container (in HTML 5), even though it was not a container in previous specifications. If you accept this premise, then I do not think that the snipped series of options is relevant (but please correct me if I am wrong). Philip TAYLOR
Received on Friday, 9 January 2009 18:51:06 UTC