- From: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>
- Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 07:39:35 -0500
- To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
you raise an interesting issue
Le 17 janv. 2010 à 06:57, Aryeh Gregor a écrit :
> If a hidden element disappears in visual UAs and an
> author doesn't bother testing in non-visual UAs -- or maybe only tests
> in non-visual UAs that happen not to support it -- they could draw
> incorrect conclusions based on the name.
doc="" has been chosen more than an indirection because in old browsers (not supporting it), it would not lead to security issues.
Le 17 janv. 2010 à 04:14, Ian Hickson a écrit :
A data: URI is processed in a legacy UA even if it
doesn't support sandboxing. What we're looking for
is a solution where the origin can be the same as
the parent document's, with scripting disabled, in
UAs that support sandbox="", and where legacy UAs
either render nothing, or, ideally, can be served a
server-filtered alternative form of the data. I
don't see how to do that with src="data:...".
--- http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.64.1001170907430.3958@ps20323.dreamhostps.com
The hidden (or ignored, ghost, etc.) attribute will remove from the DOM this part of the markup, but this part will still be reachable in all browsers not supporting the attribute. (it's more a "shrodinger" attribute.)
That will lead to usability issue, eventually accessibility issues too. Creating the page become more complex.
Also, search engines are suppose to do nothing with the content, authoring tools either (which I do not think is wise), there is also the case for validators.
Should the content be ignored by the validator?
--
Karl Dubost
Montréal, QC, Canada
http://www.la-grange.net/karl/
Received on Sunday, 17 January 2010 13:06:53 UTC