[whatwg] Should ID be required for <DFN>?
robodesign at gmail.com
Sat Jan 14 03:57:35 PST 2006
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 12:55:43 +0200, Lachlan Hunt
<lachlan.hunt at lachy.id.au> wrote:
> Eugene T.S. Wong wrote:
> Link to the nearest anchor in the relevant section of the page or, at
> the very least, just to the page itself. It's not an ideal solution,
> but there's not much else that can be done.
> That looks like an attempt to redefine how fragment identifiers work for
> HTML and XML documents, which is out of scope for this spec.
> I'm confused. The subject of this thread you started is "Should ID be
> required for <DFN>?", yet now when a suggestion requires the use of an
> ID, you point out holes in it by trying to show that the required use of
> an ID has problems.
The ID attribute should not be required for <dfn>.
One reasoning would be: dfn is a tag which has the semantical purpose to
"tell" the UA that the enclosed text defines *something*. Therefore, you
might not need to have a reference to this definition again. Forcing an ID
is ... useless in this case. If you want to reference the definition, then
use an ID (optionally).
ROBO Design - We bring you the future
More information about the whatwg