W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > August 2002

Re: My comments on the XHTML 2 draft.

From: Toby Inkster <tobyink@goddamn.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 11:41:06 +0100
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, www-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020812114106.0e6d63a1.tobyink@goddamn.co.uk>
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:38:41 +0200
Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

| If you use <section> a 'level' attribute on <h> is redundant, the level
| is determined from context. I don't see why this attribute renders h1-h6
| superfluous?

Switching to using <section> and <h> requires a different way of thinking from using the <hX> elements.  Thus, it would be sensible to provide a level attribute for the transition. It would also make converting from <hX> to <h> considerably easier for automated agents.
 
| >Another idea for an element I shall call <Title> (note: upper case T,
| >because obviously there is already a <title> element) Anyway, it could
| >be used to mark up the titles of books, software packages, films and
| >songs. Right now, <span> classes have to be used instead.
| 
| Why do you consider this element to be necessary?

I don't. *None* of the text elements are *necessary* -- we could make do with just <span>:

<span class="abbr">...</span>
<span class="quote">...</span>
<span class="pre">...</span>
<span class="p">...</span>

A <Title> element would just be *useful* -- useful in the same way as <code>, <quote> and <abbr> are.

Jonas Jo/rgensen wrote:
| This one I strongly support (though maybe Title isn't the greatest name
| for it).

I agree -- <Title> is a bad name, it's just the best name of which I could think. Maybe <pub> (for publication), although that's not really appropriate for referring to films and television shows and only really semi-appropriate for music. Maybe just <t>. For the purposes of discussion, I shall continue to refer to is as <Title> though.

Mark Gallagher wrote:
| <cite> seems fairly appropriate to me for this.

Not really. <cite> is for specifying the source of a piece of information. There are occasions when <cite> is inappropriate. For example, an online book shop listing the titles for sale, or:

    <p>
      Yesterday, I bought a copy of The Beatles' <cite>Sgt Pepper's
      Lonely Hearts Club Band</cite>.
    </p>

It's not really appropriate in that setting. Consider here the use of <cite> and <Title> together:

    <p>
      According to <cite>Bill Bryson's book <Title>A Walk in the
      Woods</Title></cite> there has been a huge fire burning in
      Centralia, Pennsylvania since 1962.  No-one has put it out
      because <quote>'no-one was empowered to spend that kind of
      money.'</quote>
    </p>

See? <Title> would be really nice. :-)

-- 
Toby A Inkster BSc ARCS
PGP:      http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/node.cgi?id=12
Web Page: http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/
IM:       AIM:inka80 ICQ:6622880 YIM:tobyink Jabber:tobyink@a-message.de

VICARIOUSLY experience some reason to LIVE!!

Received on Monday, 12 August 2002 06:58:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:52 GMT