Re: Comments on HTMl 4 draft (9/Nov/1997)

Jukka Korpela (jkorpela@cc.hut.fi)
Thu, 18 Dec 1997 09:36:44 +0200 (EET)


Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 09:36:44 +0200 (EET)
From: Jukka Korpela <jkorpela@cc.hut.fi>
To: www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <01bd0b41$53568200$LocalHost@hpxu>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.96.971218092015.1458A-100000@torvi.hut.fi>
Subject: Re: Comments on HTMl 4 draft (9/Nov/1997)

On Wed, 17 Dec 1997, Ian Hickson wrote:

> What we need are a few additions to section 9.2.1, like
> <MORE> Indicates means for getting further information on the topic
> discussed.
> <COMMENT> Indicates text which comments on adjacent paragraphs.

I agree, but I'm afraid we are in the minority.

I first thought those elements would have essentially the same semantics.
On second thought, probably not. The use of <MORE> would indicate some
kind of digression from the main theme, giving more information about
some topic to those especially interested or especially in need of
information; typically, but not necessarily, <MORE> would provide
links to separate documents for additional information. Thus, <MORE>
would serve better the intentions of an author who nowadays uses <SMALL>.
Naturally, the implementation need not involves the use of a smaller font.
(True digressions, such as saying somethink really off-topic, would
probably deserve an element of their own.)

On the other hand, <COMMENT> might present the author's comments on a
preceding <BLOCKQUOTE>, or it could be used to describe a discussion. But
perhaps <COMMENT> should be more structured, so that it would be a really
block-like element, the content of which consists of the commented and the
comment, to make it clear what the comment actually applies to.

> What do you people think? (and how does one go about suggesting this to the
> HTML design team?)

I assume people in that team are reading this discussion, and I wonder
if there is anything more than an individual could do than send one's
proposals here. Naturally, one should be prepared to write a more
elaborated suggestion, formal enough for eventual inclusion into a
specification, just in case a proposal catches on.

Yucca, http://www.hut.fi/u/jkorpela/