W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > October 1999

Re: The Future of HTML, <name>

From: Christian Ottosson <f95-cot@f.kth.se>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 18:59:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <l03130306b4392cb6f810@[]>
To: www-html@w3.org
At 1999-10-24T22:04+02:00, Håkon Wium Lie wrote:

> Also sprach JOrendorff@ixl.com:
>  > For example, (and I don't claim to be an authority on this
>  > at all) I'd like to see markup for names:
>  >
>  >   <name of="book">The Elements of Style</name>
>  >   <name of="song">Penny Lane</name>
>  >   <name of="periodical">The Alarmist</name>
> How about:
>   <span class="book">The Elements of Style</span>
>   <span class="song">Penny Lane</span>
>   <span class="periodical">The Alarmist</span>
> Agreed, your examples read better than mine, but mine have the benefit
> of working in a few hundred million browsers already.

Of course your span-suggestion is a good solution until any new tag is a
recommendation, but, as usual, there is a big difference. <name> would
carry a meaning to the browser/user -- the element is a name of something.
<span class="name"> (or similar) wouldn't carry this meaning further than
to your stylesheet. I've sometimes missed a element for names myself and I
think <cite> is appropriate in some situations. But maybe not always and I
don't find the specs very clear on the cite-element.

The markup for names would then fit pretty well among <dfn>, <var> etc.

> Perhaps someone should start collecting a list of "standard" class
> names?

As Kjetil Kjernsmo already has said, I don't think class names are a good
substitute for semantic markup. IMHO we shouldn't be so afraid of defining
new structural, phrasal markup. In the long run, it would enrich the HTML
in the way it was ment. And (not the main issue for me though) it doesn't
even cause any backward compability problems.

Christian Ottosson
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 1999 04:38:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:51 UTC