On Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 08:52:36PM +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 06:03:02 +0100, Daniel Glazman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>In any case not all <a>'s are hyperlinks so for your meaning of semantic > >>they should also not be automatically hyperlinks (or anchors if you wish). > >>I am pretty sure that existence of 'href' > >>attribute is what creates semantic meaning of <a> for you. So why <a> > >>cannot be <b href> or <c href>? > > > >Let me also play the devil (I love it) : a feature is not trashable > >only because it comes from XHTML 2.0 :-) > > I agree. One of the reasons HTML5 has <section> and redefined <h1>-<h6>. > > > >Here, a global href is a really cool idea, we should have done it in > >HTML 4 but we were too blind to see. > > What are the problems it solves? To my mind introducing it will just break > compatibility and complicate implementations for no apparent benefit. You > also get to deal with silly cases like:
suppose one is building a GUI with solely <canvas> elements. say you have a doorway, clicking on it opens into the room, which is another page. forcing this stuff into onclick() just because href= is invalid, decreases scrapability/accessibility. is one supposed to just wrap canvas polygons in <a>s or something? > > <input type=checkbox href=http://www.opera.com/> > > > HTML5 already redefines <a> to be hyperlink or a placeholder for one (this > should address your concern raised in another e-mail). The idea of <a > name=""> is not mentioned in the draft and isn't even > conforming (although I suppose user agents will be required to support it). > Any element can be a link target much like in HTML4. > > > -- > Anne van Kesteren > <http://annevankesteren.nl/> > <http://www.opera.com/> >
