[editorial] Clarify what "palpable content" is. #24
Conversation
|
Why is "Text" capitalized? |
source
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since this is a note, you don't need to make use of precise wording as you would in normative text. If your goal is to make this clear to regular users of the validator, I would recommend not using Text ("Why is it titlecased? Does this mean something special?") or inter-element whitespace ("Inter-what what?"). Mentioning descendants might already over-technicalise it. Maybe something along the lines that it must contain user-oriented content such as actually readable text, graphics, video, audio, or something that users can interact with such as form controls.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I disagree somewhat with that. Notes still need to be accurate. Also, the motivation behind adding this note is for those actually trying to understand the subject matter.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the last sentence did get quite long, and I think it has unbalanced parenthesis. I'm not opposed to the level of detail but do rephrase it a bit to break up the long sentence. (One way to do that would be to remove detail.)
Also, Text should not be capitalized. The only reason it is capitalized in its definition is because it starts the sentence. See e.g. https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#palpable-content:text-content for a lowercase usage.
I streamlined it quite a bit in the latest amend. |
|
Nice. Merged as d5c748a! |
5 participants
See https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28728
This is simply an editorial change related to the spec’s document-conformance requirements for authors (and not at all to requirements for UAs).
The problem this change is meant to address is that the current spec language doesn't make it clear enough to authors what "palpable content" is, or what makes it "palpable".
The reason I am particularly interested in this being made clear is that I’m considering to add a warning to the HTML Checker enforce the spec’s requirement for elements that should have palpable content. But if/when I add such a warning, I am fairly certain that I would shortly after that start getting checker bug reports from users saying that they don’t really understand what "palpable content" is, or why they need to have it. So we could preempt that problem by having the spec make things more clear to them ahead of them—while also giving something better that the checker warning could quote or even include a hyperlink to.