Re: Pandering to poor authorship (was Proposing <indent> vs. <blockquote>)

on 4/12/07 2:40 AM, Bruce Boughton at wrote:

> Dylan Smith wrote:
>> While the value/validity of the various elements is open to debate, one
>> thing v.5 ought to be is a real standard. While backwards compatability is
>> important, laying out proper usage will make everyone's lives easier in the
>> long run. 
> Sorry, I don't understand what your position is.  I can't even see if
> you're supporting my opinion or Mike's!  Perhaps you could be more explicit.

I wasn't so much weighing in on the <indent> proposal as just dittoing the
> I don't think this is the right
> time to pander to poor (w.r.t standards) authoring.

Maybe there's a place for <indent>. My initial knee-jerk is that it's a
purely presentational element, without any structural meaning. It doesn't
take long to type <div class="indent">.

The misuse of <blockquote> is a concern; it's supposed to actually represent
a different structural element, innit? Rather than just something you want
to look indented?

(I'll be the first to admit I've abused a tag or two in my day - I skip <h2>
and jump right to <h3> all the time.)

But I'm open to convincing on <indent>. I'd like to hear some other's
thoughts on it. Either way, the standard should be a bit more explicit about
what is and what isn't proper usage.

-- Dylan Smith

>> Ever tried to CSS a site someone else structured poorly?
> Yes :( Just recently: a Joomla based site (urgh) with terrible structure
> and existing poor CSS; and the Mailman web interface [double urgh]) ;)
> Bruce Boughton

Received on Friday, 13 April 2007 00:05:53 UTC