- From: Dao Gottwald <dao@design-noir.de>
- Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 13:36:13 +0200
- To: Mike Schinkel <w3c-lists@mikeschinkel.com>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
Mike Schinkel wrote: > > Dao Gottwald wrote: >> Mike Schinkel wrote: >>> Yes, I can use CSS, but indent is such a common need that I end up >>> using <blockquote> because it doesn't require me to remember the >>> idiosyncrasies of the box model and how it applies to different >>> browsers. >> >> You think that's a valid reason? > Is that a rhetorical question? Yes. I don't think it's a valid reason for a new element. >>> Providing an <indent> would add zero semantic information >> >> ... which directly violates our Design Principles. > Can you be more specific? http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ProposedDesignPrinciples "markup that expresses semantics is usually preferred to purely presentational markup" -- So you can't deprecate a semantic element in favor of a presentational one. "HTML Strikes a balance between semantic expressiveness and practical usefulness." -- Explicitly removing semantics can't be considered as a balance. (I neither think <indent> would be useful.) >> So you expect accessible browser X to recognize <indent >> class="quote"> as a quote? > Did I say that? (Asked another way, since when do *browsers* > generally recognize semantics in markup?) I can't tell you the year, but certain browsers have to do that in order to present content to disabled users. It can also be important for software apart from browsers, like search engines. --Dao
Received on Monday, 9 April 2007 11:36:24 UTC