- From: Mike Schinkel <w3c-lists@mikeschinkel.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:52:29 -0400
- To: public-html@w3.org
Dao Gottwald wrote: > Yes. I don't think it's a valid reason for a new element. Well let me simply explicitly disagree with you. >> 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. I was not asking to deprecate <blockquote>. It still have significant value. But it is very often misused simple to gain an indent which is what I was proposing. > "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.) I wasn't proposing removing semantics. I was proposing adding an element with reduced semantics that could be used when another would often be misused. Another alternate would be to provide a @type attribute that would provide a set of defined types and allow user defined values just like @rel on the <link> element. This could add semantics. >> Did I say that? (Asked another way, since when do *browsers* >> generally recognize semantics in markup?) > So you expect accessible browser X to recognize <indent class="quote"> > as a quote? I didn't say that either. Why do you keep trying to attribute to me statements I did not make? > I can't tell you the year, but certain browsers have to do that in > order to present content to disabled users. Have to do what? > It can also be important for software apart from browsers, like search > engines. Important how? ========= Alexander Graf wrote: > +1 > > Indenting is presentational and blockquote is about > semantics. Mixing the two or providing an <indent> > element in the semantic markup is just plain wrong. +1 to my proposal or Dao's objection? ========= Brad Fults wrote: > I can't think of a single use case where an <indent> element would be > a better representation of content than contemporary HTML elements > styled with CSS. Can you please provide me an example of both an <indent> and an alternate HTML element that would be styled with CSS? And please do it with inline CSS styling as people who write HTML in blog posts and in comments on blogs and when posting to forums. > Any incoherencies in the box model support in different browsers are > only temporary and will be eradicated in the coming months/years. Forgive me for being skeptical, but I believe you are being hopelessly over-optimistic on this count. > In any case, bugs in current implementations of reasonable specs are > certainly no reason to introduce entirely new elements only to get > around the bugs. The reality is that indentation is an extremely common use-case, and HTML proper does not support indentation without carrying potentially improper semantics. Simplifying a common use case is a very good reason to provide an element. FYI, my primary concern is for the casual HTML author such as mentioned above; for these people brevity of expression is extremely important. If you don't give them brevity in the "correct" way to do it, they'll use the "incorrect" way as it makes their life easier. -- -Mike Schinkel http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/ http://www.welldesignedurls.org http://atlanta-web.org - http://t.oolicio.us
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2007 01:52:53 UTC