[whatwg] [html5] 2.6. Phrase elements
ian at hixie.ch
Thu Apr 14 05:42:33 PDT 2005
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> * 2.6.1. The a element
> I was wondering if you could give some more examples for the specific
> attributes. For example:
> content:" " url(pdf-icon)
That's an example of CSS, not of HTML. But yes, I'm all for more examples
in general. Send them in, the best ones will get added to the spec! :-)
> * 2.6.6. The abbr element
> It seems the TITLE attribute here has a very specific content model.
> Perhaps it should be specific for the ABBR element instead of reusing
> the global TITLE attribute?
Yeah, why not. DFN, too.
> # The title attribute may be omitted if there is a dfn element in the
> # document whose defining term is the abbreviation.
> I think this sentence might need some clarification. Is it something
> like the following:
> <dfn title="World Wide Web Consortium">...
> ... so I don't have to provide a TITLE for ABBR because DFN already has
> one with the same value? I don't think that makes sense...
No, it's something like:
<dfn>W3C</dfn> is the World Wide Web Consortium
I've added an example.
> I also wonder, as some elements have further restricted content models.
> Is it expected that ABBR elements may nest? (Perhaps this should be a
> more general question as it applies to some other elements in this
> section as well.)
Yes, <abbr> could nest. A contrived example:
<abbr title="UN International Children's Emergency Fund"
><abbr title="United Nations">UN</abbr>ICEF</abbr>
> * 2.6.12. The kbd element
> How can this element only be used in strictly inline-level content but
> sometimes contain inline-level content. That doesn't work.
I'm confused about what you mean here. "inline-level content" includes
"strictly inline-level content".
> If that is changed and inline-level content is still allowed I would
> like to see an example in the specification.
Changed to only allow strictly-inline children. I couldn't find a
realistic example of <kbd> containing structured inline content that
wouldn't be better handled by using block-level elements and nested inner
> * 2.6.13. The sup and sub elements
> Shouldn't the second example use the I element?
No, why would it be?
> * 2.6.15. The q element
> It looks like this has the same problem as 2.6.12. (A Q element to
> contain a BLOCKQUOTE?)
I don't understand the problem. If the person you are quoting was
themselves quoting a block from elsewhere, where's the problem?
> The link of the CITE attribute links to the CITE element...
> * 2.6.16. The cite element
> Could this element get a note saying that it should not be used for
> quotations. Perhaps an invalid example would help as well.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg