- From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 00:20:13 +0100
- To: public-html-comments@w3.org
Dave Hodder wrote: > Please consider adding the 'l' element (as found in XHTML 2). So far I thought XHTML 2 is designed to be transformed into something "visible" with browsers on the side of the server, while HTML5 wishes to *be* this client-"visible" something. In other words introducing backwards incompatible "features" needs compelling reasons, with <del> and <tfoot> as examples how to drop the ball. > instead of "<p>Line 1<br>Line 2</p>", one would type > "<p><l>Line 1</l><l>Line 2</l></p>". IMO not compelling, and it won't work in almost all browsers. > <form method="post" action="/profiles"> > <p> > <l><label for="forename">Forename:</label> > <input type="text" id="forename" name="forename" > size="50" maxlength="50" /></l> > <l><label for="surname">Surname:</label> > <input type="text" id="surname" name="surname" > size="50" maxlength="50" /></l> [...] Could <ul><li>...</li><li>...</li></ul> do what you want ? validator.nu accepts <ul><li> instead of <p><l> for your example, claiming that size="50" is invalid in HTML5. Unfortunately "size" is yet another REQUIRED feature for backwards compatibility, your size=50" is a decent value for such old browsers. > I don't believe adapting to use <l> would prove any more > challenging than, for example, adapting to use <section>. I didn't look into many proposed new features for HTML5 so far, maybe a <section> is not much better than <l>. IIRC XHTML 2 has no <i>, but HTML5 does. Having <i> *and* <l> is not nice. > <!--[if lt IE 8]><script type="text/javascript"> > document.createElement('l'); // Register 'l' element within IE > </script><![endif]--> A feature requiring enabled Javascript in some browsers might delight the double-tracker-ping-analytics fans. :-( Frank
Received on Sunday, 17 February 2008 23:18:56 UTC