W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > March 2006

Re: XHTML 2.0 - dfn : Content model and usability (PR#7832)

From: Kelly Miller <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 00:25:20 -0500
Message-ID: <4424D440.3010707@gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>, "'www-html@w3.org'" <www-html@w3.org>

Hash: SHA1

The whole HTML Text Module is rather contrived, considering it's the
only Module still in existence which contains most of the holdover
definitions from HTML 3.2, a lot of which probably aren't necessary.  Is
it necessary to have <var>, <samp>, <kbd>, etc?

Most of them are never used simply because their use cases aren't common
in regular writing.  OTOH, structures that ARE commonly used have been
rejected as not being necessary because of the existence of role.  Maybe
someone should look into condensing the Text Module as well?

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>> It's a holdover from HTML 3.2. It isn't even legacy markup, since it has 
>> been used very little; it exists in theory only.
> According to my studies it's used in around 0.1% of the Web's pages. One 
> in every thousand pages isn't bad, given how few pages could be expected 
> to be defining terms; In particular, it's used more than <ins>, <del>, 
> <var>, <samp>, <bdo>, etc.
> Then again, it's used less than <blink>, <bgsound>, <marquee>, <spacer>. 
> So maybe that doesn't mean so much.

- --
http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/ - Get Firefox!
http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/ - Reclaim Your Inbox!

Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

Received on Saturday, 25 March 2006 00:54:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:12 UTC