[whatwg] abbr inside of option
ian at hixie.ch
Thu Apr 28 15:34:24 PDT 2011
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Jens O. Meiert wrote:
> > >
> > > Just curious: What is the reasoning behind the option element not
> > > being able to contain abbr elements?
> > What problem would this solve?
> I think this question came up a few times, also in the context of the
> “title” element; to try a very quick abstraction, it seems logical
> that the content model of every non-void HTML element (with the only
> exception of form elements?) should allow (most) phrasing content.
> Having asked the question too for “title” at some point the
> reasoning is that you could not express the meaning of these elements’
> contents otherwise. Or, why should “<h1><abbr>HTML</abbr></h1>” be
> acceptable but “<title><abbr>HTML</abbr></title>” not be
> permitted—in both cases, “HTML” is an abbreviation. (No need to
> explain the situation around the “title” element again, I just like
> the example.)
In that case, the restriction for both is for the same reason: it's to
reduce the author's assumption that these elements will have any effect.
In practice, they will not; UAs will often implement these elements using
platform features that only accept a raw string.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg