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

Re: XHTML 2.0 - dfn : Content model and usability

From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 19:46:59 +0200
Message-ID: <42CAC793.9050306@students.cs.uu.nl>
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Cc: www-html-editor@w3.org, www-html@w3.org

Karl Dubost schreef:
>>> 3. Typographic purposes
>>
>> By that argument, why would you need <em> or <code>.
> 
> For semantics. :) Not for typography
> 
> *** Source: WordNet (r) 2.0 ***
> typography
>      n 1: the craft of composing type and printing from it
>      2: art and technique of printing with movable type [syn:  
> {composition}]
> 
> A voice browser will emphasize the sound for it, a voice browser  could 
> say, "Code" then …

Yeah, but typography and semantics are quite tightly locked together... 
Typography is one of the applications of a semantic tag. Most of the 
time, in order to achieve a certain typographic effect you tag 
something. If the tag is semantic, it does not say in what way it has to 
be presented and only conveys the purpose. But it is still tagged 
amongst others for typographic reasons.

Anyways, you understand what I mean :).


>>  So in the end I would probably just want to use a copy of the text  
>> with minor changes for a definition list.
> 
> Which would be a lot easier to do if you could extract the list  
> automatically.

...perhaps. It is not ideal, but you could just take the paragraph 
containing the definition...


>> So whether it is useful enough to warrant addition to the spec is  
>> doubtful, from my point of view.
> 
> See Al Gilmann message, At least I think the prose of XHTML 2.0  
> explaining dfn is not enough to explain all the valuable use cases  and 
> examples, all of you gave.

Most certainly.


>> True. You currently can’t (conveniently) do that. But, again, I  give 
>> you the argument that it would be difficult to do so anyway  because 
>> the ‘dd’ is taken out of context.
> 
> So basically what you are saying is that "dfn" should not be "dfn" ;)  
> but more "keyword". A bit of humour. ;))) Don't take it seriously.

^_^


>>> Thanks Laurens for adding to the understanding. The Editors might   
>>> want to add examples to clarify the use cases.
>>
>> Agreed. But that’s why the XHTML 2.0 spec is still a working draft :).
> 
> :))) and hard work going on.

I assume so!


~Grauw

-- 
Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san nan da!!
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2005 17:47:56 GMT

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