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.)
Ah, ok. 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. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
