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

Re: My comments on the XHTML 2 draft.

From: Lachlan Cannon <luminosity@members.evolt.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 23:11:55 +1000
Message-ID: <3D67861B.10009@members.evolt.org>
To: www-html@w3.org

Toby Inkster wrote

>The <h> element should have a level attribute such that the following are presentationally (by default, can be changed by style sheets) and semantically considered equivalent:
>  
>
I don't agree. Either keep the h1-h6 elements or lose them completely 
and go with just plain <h> with section nesting showing important. For 
one thing it's a way of stopping people using different h levels for 
visual formatting only. For another, there's no point losing a set of 
tags and then substituting another with exactly the same behaviour.

>The <section> element should have a list of recommended classes, much like the list of recommended values for the rel attribute of <link>s. These should include:
>  
>
I don't think the class attribute should be used. Maybe a meta="" 
attribute? Apart from that I'm in agreement. Two values I'd liek to see 
recommended by the W3C would be "content" and "navigation". This would 
also replace the need for footer, navigation, etc attributes that some 
people have been calling for.

>A <t> element should be added for titles of books, plays, films and musical works and possibly software packages. An example of its usage and semantic difference from <cite>
>  
>
Definitely.

>The <strong> element should be deprecated in favour of <em><em>blah</em></em>
>  
>
I think it should just be removed altogether. <em><em> should not be 
used... it seems stupid, IMO. You're either emphasising or you're not. 
You don't emphasise an emphasis.

-- 
Lach
web:    http://illuminosity.net/
e-mail: lach @ illuminosity.net
msn:    luminosity @ members.evolt.org
Received on Saturday, 24 August 2002 09:15:45 GMT

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