This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 8589 - invalid value default needs markup as definition
Summary: invalid value default needs markup as definition
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: pre-LC1 HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC Windows NT
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
URL: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2010-01-03 18:54 UTC by Don Brutzman
Modified: 2010-10-04 14:29 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description Don Brutzman 2010-01-03 18:54:45 UTC
2.4.3 Keywords and enumerated attributes

states

"In addition, two default states can be given.
  The first is the <i>invalid value default</i>, the second
  is the <i>missing value default</i>."

The two italicized terms are not tagged as defined.
Comment 1 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2010-01-11 10:42:26 UTC
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Rejected
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: Indeed, they're not really defined, they're just names. I was worried that hyperlinking them all over the place would lead to just even more links that are confusing, without actually helping anyone reading the spec. Do you think I'm wrong about this? I could add the links if you think that would be helpful, though even then they wouldn't really be definitions per se.
Comment 2 Don Brutzman 2010-01-26 07:04:59 UTC
i agree that you don't want to identify terms as linkable definitions if they aren't used elsewhere as such.