Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Simon Pieters wrote:
There are also alternative suggestions, like making <a> contain any
element. Unfortunately, none of these end up working (e.g. for this
proposal, <a><p></a> would create an unexpected DOM -- we'd have to
make </p> end tags not optional when the next end tag was an </a>,
which would be somewhat confusing).
The rules for optional end tags are already pretty confusing. I don't
think it's a problem to require </p> when the "p" element is the last
child of an "a" element.
Ok. Fair enough. I have allowed <a> elements to surround other
(non-interactive) elements.
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, James Graham wrote:
I think <table><a><tr> also causes problems; being able to link whole
table rows seems like one of the major use cases for this proposal.
Yes. I don't see how to fix that one.
Given that I'm not sure making <a> transparent is wise. It seems like authors
will try to use this feature, get tripped up by the table voodoo and become
confused about why it doesn't work for what seems to be one of the most
desirable use cases.
--
"Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?"
-- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
