[whatwg] @Irrelevant [was: Re: Thoughts on HTML 5]
Jonas Sicking
jonas at sicking.cc
Sat Mar 1 04:05:51 PST 2008
This sounds like a good idea to me.
First off 'irrelevant' is pretty hard to spell for non-native english
speakers (go sweden!).
Second, the elements are in fact relevant to the page since in all
likelihood they will be used later. 'ignore' feels like a better
description since it's weaker. We want to acknowledges the existance of
the element, but tells you to not pay attention to it.
Though I might be making making the last part up given that I fall into
the first category :)
/ Jonas
Nicholas C. Zakas wrote:
> From this thread, it seems like the true purpose of irrelevant is to
> add to HTML the logical equivalent of display:none in CSS. If that is
> true, then I'd agree with Jeff that renaming the attribute "ignore" or
> "omit" is a good idea. Can anyone either confirm or deny the purpose of
> this attribute as the following description:
>
> "This attribute is used to indicate part of a document whose content is
> not considered primary to the page. In visual UAs, elements with this
> attribute are not rendered; in non-visual UAs, elements with this
> attribute are not read as part of the normal content flow."
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Nicholas
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Jeff Walden <jwalden at MIT.EDU>
> To: Nicholas C. Zakas <html at nczonline.net>
> Cc: James Graham <jg307 at cam.ac.uk>; whatwg at lists.whatwg.org
> Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 11:41:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [whatwg] @Irrelevant [was: Re: Thoughts on HTML 5]
>
> Nicholas C. Zakas 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"?
>
> Unnecessarily suggests a particular medium of display; I suggest the
> shorter alternatives ignore(d) or omit(ted) if you really want the
> functionality.
>
> The biggest problem with the attribute is the spec doesn't sufficiently
> clearly describe the motivation for it; I suggest mentioning the
> preloading of iframes as such an example (they don't load/render if
> they're display:none, so it's either visibility:hidden (?) or launching
> the element into outer space offscreen with position/top/left), perhaps
> in an informative paragraph.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
> Search.
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping>
More information about the whatwg
mailing list