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

RE: Preload for <section>

From: Jelks Cabaniss <jelks@jelks.nu>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 14:19:10 -0400
To: <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004801c26589$36f424d0$6601a8c0@blackie>

Richard Norman wrote:

> The <q> renamed to <quote>:
> I think this is a good thing in that it makes it more clear what is
> being defined.  The argument about the table elements was brought up,
> but in my experiences <tr> and <td> was very non descriptive.  If you
> had something like <row> <column> and <cell> that would be clear and
> very straight forward for someone to understand.  Yes you could learn
> what TR and TD meant, but if the purpose is to be more descriptive for
> what the content is then we should consider this as well.

That was my pretty much my point.  We *could* do a wholescale renaming
of elements.  <ul> could become <list type="unordered">, and so on (tr,
td, ol, dl ...), to be more "self-evident" to someone who had never seen
HTML before.

But the WG doesn't appear to have done that except in one case: <q> to
<quote>.  I think they should take one approach or the other: wholescale
renaming, or keep the same names.  I can see many good reasons for the
former, but I actually favor the latter.  There are too many other
issues on the table (like whether XHTML 2 will ever see the light of
day, considering current "requirements" being shoved on it ... :)

> That is my basic two cents on this issue, but I love the direction 
> where everything is going.  I just need more time to understand 
> where things like the <center> tag and the align attribute are 
> replaced in CSS.

?  If you've been authoring in HTML 4.x Strict or XHTML 1.0 Strict,
you'll have *already* been using CSS in lieu of <center> and align.
XHTML 2 doesn't change that.

Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 14:19:27 UTC

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