W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html-editor@w3.org > July to September 2005

Re: XHTML 2.0 - dfn : Content model and usability

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 13:28:33 -0400
Message-Id: <50CC19A4-1600-4DD4-9167-6EDCE5032A7B@w3.org>
Cc: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>, www-html-editor@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
To: Rob Mientjes <robmientjes@gmail.com>


Le 05-07-05 à 12:34, Rob Mientjes a écrit :
> You are kind of ignoring the more important bit here, namely that DFN
> is also used for keyword indexing. If Google were a better bot, it
> would use the <dfn> tags on pages to give them more weight, which they
> have. Not just that. A small app that would simply list all DFNs on
> that page with links to them would be very handy for a wiki page where
> some stuff does not require a new page, for example.

which means that you have to make the "id" attribute mandatory for  
this purpose. If I follow you, because a dfn alone would be useless?

Good: Another use case to add to the specification.


> ... It does have semantic meaning. The fact alone that a UA could say
> "hey punk, take a look at this word, for it's defined somewhere near
> it. You might want to know" makes it semantic :)

So is it a requirement for implementation for user agent?
Not said in the specification.

All the interesting comments made since the start shows that there is  
a lack of

     - practical examples
     - implementation requirement
     - semantic model definition
     - use cases

One or more of those items in the list in the specification and/or a  
best practices guide for XHTML 2.0. Because right now, many people  
(webmasters, users, etc) don't understand it, including me on many  
things. :)

> Like I said, it's useful enough. Don't use Laurens's aside remark
> regarding just the lack of a way to mark up the _explanation_ to
> undermine the whole essence of a DFN element. It's lacking, yeah, but
> it does not obsolete DFN at all.

ok. Fair enough at the light of the comments.

>>> Especially because it takes the text out of context, I don't think
>>> making glossaries based on this is a good idea, nor very useful.
>>>
>
> No, obviously not. Referencing, however, is exactly what the web is
> about, and I see DFN as just another means to do so.

except that to know what part of the definition is useful to  
understand the term makes it very difficult without a container. Al  
Gilmann made a very good comment accessibility wise for example.

>> If you can produce a dl/dt/dd glossary parsing a text for definition.
>> You gain time.
>>
>
> Agreed. DL is the only sensible way to do _that_, but again, it does
> not obsolete DFN.
>
>
>> Thanks Laurens for adding to the understanding. The Editors might
>> want to add examples to clarify the use cases.
>>
>
> Examples are always good. I believe the CSSWG has a complete new team
> just for composing examples ;)

;)
Maybe a wiki project could be used to create the use case for each  
element on this element and that would be the start of a best  
practice guide.

thanks again.

-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2005 17:28:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:17:55 GMT