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

Re: My comments on the XHTML 2 draft.

From: Etan Wexler <ewexler@stickdog.com>
Date: 05 Sep 2002 14:44:44-0700
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <XHTML2-miscellany@d20020904.etan.wexler>

Lachlan Cannon wrote to <www-html@w3.org> on 24 August 2002 in "Re: My
comments on the XHTML 2 draft."

> Either keep the h1-h6 elements or lose them completely 
> and go with just plain <h> with section nesting showing important.

Lose them.  Given the sectioned structure promoted in XHTML 2.0, there
should be no need for the level-numbered heading types.

> there's no point losing a set of 
> tags and then substituting another with exactly the same behaviour.

Amen to that.

> I don't think the class attribute should be used [to denote kinds of
> sections].

This is just the case for which the 'class' attribute is suited.  Can
you elaborate your opposition?

> Maybe a meta="" attribute?

I fail to see how the type of section is metadata.

> Two values I'd [like] 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.

I think that you meant "element types" in place of "attributes".

Anyhow, the use of distinct element types allows each a distinct content
model and a distinct place in the content models of other element types.
I am not arguing that this benefit is reason enough to add the proposed
element types, but I am arguing to consider the benefit carefully.

> <em><em> should not be 
> used... it seems stupid, IMO. You're either emphasising or you're not. 
> You don't emphasise an emphasis.

Is the following example illegitimate?

<quote><em>All right, <em>Dad</em>, I get the point.</em></quote>

Etan Wexler <mailto:ewexler@stickdog.com>
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 17:30:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:00 UTC