[whatwg] Significant inline content vs. attributes and sectional elements
tekelenb at euronet.nl
Thu Mar 9 19:35:19 PST 2006
At 22:08 +0000 UTC, on 2006-03-09, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> the requirements on attribute occurrence are very lax and
>> sectional elements are not required to have any content at all. These
>> requirements seem very inconsistent in spirit to me.
> Yeah, I haven't really thought these through yet.
> Here are some of the things I'm worried about:
> * It should be possible for scripts to add content to placeholder
> elements without those placeholder elements being non-conformant.
> This is a very useful programming idiom, not least of which because
> adding content to an existing element (whether attributes or child
> nodes) is a lot easier than adding the element in the first place.
Wouldn't a <placeholder> element be more appropriate then?
> * It should be possible to have a group of pages that have a similar
> structure, with elements annotated as necessary. For example, a menu
> list could be the same on each page, but with the currently loaded
> page simply not having the "href" attribute on its link, or some such.
I won't claim there might not be valid cases, but this seems like a bad
example to me. If something is not a link it should not be marked-up as such.
How useful is it to the user to provide a hyperlink that points nowhere?
Sander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/>
More information about the whatwg