Welcome to WebHeadStart.org

Web Technologies

Sponsored By

WebHeadStart.org is currently in beta.
Please pardon our appearance as we work to provide you with the most comprehensive reference on today's web technologies.

Interested in advertising on WebHeadStart? Become an advertising partner today!

[WWW-HTML Mailing List Archive Home] [Messages By Thread] [Messages By Date]

Re: Concerns about the "l" element name <l>

From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 10:50:46 +0200 (EET)
To: HTML List <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0411021036470.7268@korppi.cs.tut.fi>

On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Lachlan Hunt wrote:

> That's why the XHTML 2 draft states [1]
>
> # An a element defines an anchor. Since hypertext attributes such as
> # href may be applied to any element, this element is not strictly
> # necessary, being equivalent to a span, but has been retained to allow
> # the expression of explicit links.

Such an idea results typically from a theoretical analysis that aims at
simplicility and orthogonality and whatever. So I could well have invented
it myself, but since I didn't, I can see that it's all wrong.

What happened to the usability and accessibility principle that
a link text should be short and concise, yet informative, and work
reasonably out-of-context too, e.g. in a list of all links? What will e.g.
speech browsers do in links reading mode when a link is five paragraphs or
a hundred-lines table or something really big?

Hypertext should be more than text, not less. A link should be a word,
abbreviation, or a short phrase, often name-like (such as the title of the
linked resource). Restricting it to text level content and using specific
markup element for a link is _good_. Allowing anything to be a link is
_not_ progress; quite the contrary.

If XHTML 2 will intentionally break any compatibility with old versions of
HTML, it could just as well have a logical name for a linking element,
such as... let me think... <link>? Or maybe <ref>

> I personally don't think that's a very good reason to keep it, but there
> is little harm in doing so.

Except continued confusion, of course. But we might ask whether it's
really the <span> element that is redundant.

Actually some people have figured out that in practical HTML authoring at
present, you can use <a> (without href or name attributes) instead of
<span>. If you later decide to make it a link, you can just add the href
attribute. Consider a typical case: adding markup just to carry an
attribute, like <a lang="fi">Jukka K. Korpela</a>. Works just as fine as
<span>. And if you like, you can then simply add a href attribute without
changing the element's name. (If you do this, you need to be careful about
But that's a good principle anyway.)

The word "span" doesn't really mean anything. The string "a" would be just
as understandable, wouldn't it?

-- 
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ 
Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2004 08:51:21 GMT
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | WebHeadStart.org © 2005 All Rights Reserved.