W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > February 2005

[whatwg] [WF2] <icomplex> Recap

From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:21:23 -0500
Message-ID: <4210C1F3.3010501@earthlink.net>
Matthew Thomas wrote:
> On 13 Feb, 2005, at 9:26 PM, Matthew Raymond wrote:
>>6) Someone should suggest a new name if they don't like the current 
>>one.
> 
> <entry>.

    There are a few problems with this name:

1) An <entry> element could easily be confused for being an entry in a 
weblog or similar document. It could also be confused for being some 
kind of entry point for something, like insertion of content. It just 
doesn't have a very clear meaning. In fact, if you go here...

    http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=input

...you'll notice that entry isn't even listed as a synonym of input.

2) There's nothing about the name "entry" that allows people to 
associate it with the <input> element (which it's modeled on).

3) There's nothing about the name "entry" that people can associate with 
legacy content.

    I could live with _<dataentry>_, though. That's very clearly an 
input element, and it has a mild phonetic association with <datalist>, 
which itself supports legacy content. (My only issue is that it's a 
little on the long side, but then to a lesser extent so is <icomplex>.)
Received on Monday, 14 February 2005 07:21:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:21 UTC