[whatwg] @Irrelevant [was: Re: Thoughts on HTML 5]

Fri Feb 29 11:14:54 PST 2008

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:54:08 +0100, Nicholas C. Zakas <html at nczonline.net>  
wrote:
> If the true purpose of the irrelevant attribute is to aid in  
> accessibility, then I think the name is completely wrong. The term  
> "irrelevant" is confusing because, as I stated before, why would anyone  
> include content in a page that is irrelevant? What you really need is a  
> way to say "this is relevant only for non-visual UA's". Perhaps a better  
> attribute name would be "nonvisual"?

The attribute, as explained in the specification (maybe it's not clear  
enough?) is intended for dynamic applications where you already have  
<section>s in the page for several steps, but only one of those <section>s  
is currently relevant. The rest is marked "irrelevant" until the user  
completes some action.

This is a totally different case from the one you seem to be worried about.

-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>