W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > February 2007

[whatwg] Should <address> be more general-purpose?

From: Simon Pieters <zcorpan@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 21:43:37 +0100
Message-ID: <op.tofc6zrj7a8kvn@hp-a0a83fcd39d2>
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:35:50 +0100, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis  
<bhawkeslewis at googlemail.com> wrote:

> [...]
>
>> Isn't it better to make <address> more general so that its semantics
>> is more like how most authors use it so that it becomes a convenient
>> styling hook for authors?
>
> [snip]
>
>> I don't think it's a good idea to invent a new element when the use-case
>> is so weak that most authors don't bother using it and no UA have
>> implemented anything useful with it. I'd rather drop <address>  
>> altogether.
>
> I don't follow. You seem to be asserting both that "most authors" misuse
> <address> to mean any contact info /and/ that "most authors" have no use
> for an element like <contactinfo> that is actually for "any contact
> info".

Oh. I was misreading what you said in your previous reply. I thought you  
were suggesting that <address> would be for general contact information  
and <contactinfo> for what <address> is now. Sorry.

I do think authors have use for an element for "any contact info", but I  
think using <address> for this and dropping the "page (or section) author  
contact info" semantics is better than using two elements. If UAs or tools  
get around to implement anything useful with the current semantics of  
<address> then I'll reconsider.

-- 
Simon Pieters
Received on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 12:43:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:32 UTC