W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2009

Re: simple shorthand syntax proposal

From: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 13:58:55 +0000
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20090205135854.GB4637@stripey.com>

Dailey, David P. writes:

> Would <c> be just like <span> only shorter to type?

Is than an advantage?  I'd've thought we should be discouraging the use
of <span>, which only has semantic meaning if given a class and software
aware of that class, in circumstances when an element with defined
semantics could be used.

Let's look at the example given:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Håkon Wium Lie
> 
> I'd also like to see a one-letter generic character-level element. The
> letter c looks marvellous ... Combinding the two proposals, we could write:
> 
>  <p.abstract>The topic of this paper is the <c.topic>oxidation of
>  sugar</c>.
> 
> Easier on the eye, isn't it?

But completely meaningless when rendered, unless with something which
interprets what .topic means.

> The markup would neatly comine with:
> 
>  p.abstract { margin: 2em }
>  c.topic { font-weight: bold }

That makes the topic bold for users of graphical browsers who have
style-sheets enabled.  All other users are unaware that 'oxidation of
sugar' has been distinguished in any way at all by the author.

If you used <dfn> or <em> or <strong> or <b> or <mark> (as applicable)
then the specialness of that pharse can be conveyed to all users.  You
can of course still use CSS to make it render as per the above for
graphical browser users.

So I think it's appropriate Huffman coding for <span> to need typing in
full.

Smylers
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 13:59:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:29 GMT