Please, no - on "<term>". Can we exercise some restraint on the "might be useful" features? I do not see anything here of significant value. What are the semantics of <term>? Lacking any sort of context - essentially none. Is this a scientific term? A technical term? A vulgar term? How should it be presented? Are there attached behaviors (links to definitions, fly-over panels, etc.). Do the terms belong in an index (and if so which)? The answer is simply that we do not know. If the formatting is at all inconsistent across browsers, then the explicit styles will have to be defined by the programmer. If there is more than one variant with "term" semantics, then class attributes will have to be assigned. At that point it is doubtful we are at all ahead of simply using a <span> with class. We need a category for new features, where for any feature XX: - XX will be seldom used. - When used, often XX will be used incorrectly, - Agents looking for XX-like semantics are likely to find XX is better ignored. (Heard the above fragment before?) Maybe we need a catchy tag for future rare/wrong/ignored features. RWI? GROWIE (Generally Rare, Often Wrong, Ignored Elsewhere)? Whatever works ...
Received on Sunday, 15 April 2007 02:54:35 UTC