[whatwg] Significant inline content vs. attributes and sectional elements
hsivonen at iki.fi
Fri Mar 10 07:56:23 PST 2006
On Mar 10, 2006, at 00:08, Ian Hickson wrote:
> 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.
Well, it depends. Either the script writer has to locate each
placeholder or alternatively (s)he only needs to locate a parent to
which append (e.g. head).
Anyway, adding the base URL via a script seems like a bad idea that
does not deserve to be optimized for, and the meta element is usually
meant for data mining tools that do not execute scripts. I see the
point with the link element, although a link without a rel and a href
still intuitively feels wrong.
> * It should be possible to have a group of pages that have a similar
> structure, with elements annotated as necessary. For example, a
> 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
Well, I suppose an <a> without a href could make sense for styling in
such a case. Still seems wrong somehow.
> * It should always be clear from a semantic point of view whether the
> content is a single "paragraph", or whether it is a group of
Yes, changing flow to exclusive or of block and inline seems reasonable.
>> href and rel on link
>> href on base
>> name and content on meta (other than the encoding decl)
>> src on img
>> code, height and width on applet
>> name and value on param
> I've made a note of this in the draft so I don't lose track of it.
> proposals make sense on the whole.
> Exceptions: <base target> may mean that
> <base> should have either href or target.
The current draft does not even have target. How would the target map
to XHTML where the base element is not allowed?
>> I suggest that the
>> alt attribute on img be made optional.
> I agree.
> You can have empty sections. They might not be written yet, for
> I agree. I think I'll remove mention of the "significant inline
hsivonen at iki.fi
More information about the whatwg