- From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.co.uk>
- Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 12:53:42 +0200
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.co.uk>, Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>, www-html@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 03:27:21AM -0700, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> >>elements. But consider <i class="ship">.
> >
> > Meaning nothing. Do you mean a ship name? Or is it an abbreviate
> > name for a shipping label? Or perhaps even a status saying whether
> > something is about to ship?
>
> What is the correct way, according to you, to mark up a ship name?
That wasn't the topic. Ideally we would use the <shipname> element,
of course, but that doesn't exist in HTML - and no-one has ever
said that HTML ought contain elements for all conceivable
semantic constructs.
With that firmly out of the way, it depends on the style of
publication - as others point out: it's by no means a certainty
that a ship's name should be set in italics.
I would suggest the following if using HTML:
<span class="shipName">
<abbr title="Her Majesty's Ship">HMS</abbr> Gannet</span>
Yes, the SPAN-element is semantically null. But no precise
element exist. The 'house style' can now be attached to the
class "shipName", but there is, in the above, /no semantic
value communicated/.
Which is a shame, of course, but again: we can't make a
markup language that fit all, and we most certainly cannot
start guessing at what the content of an I-element might
or might not be!
The original point, however, remain unchanged even if we
move from the poorly chosen class name "ship" to the more
precise "shipName". The I-ement convey no more semantics
than does SPAN.
PS: Yes, the ABBR element is needed in this context,
and I did enjoy using it there.
--
- Tina Holmboe
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2007 10:53:55 UTC