Re: Introduce <term> element

On 4/15/07, Preston L. Bannister <> wrote:
> 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 ...

<term> will be usefull to format spetial not defined (dfn) words. It
will also allow aural UA to change the render of these words,
indicating a special 'term'.

And if there is a need for scientific term, or technical term, HTML 6
WG could spec it.

Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 11:26:19 UTC