On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:54:08 +0100, Nicholas C. Zakas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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/>
