- From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:04:58 +0000
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- CC: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Karl Dubost wrote: > > > Le 20 févr. 2008 à 12:13, James Graham a écrit : >> A summary of the feedback given on <cite>, together with the rationale >> for the change is in [1]. >> [1] >> http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-February/014008.html >> > > I haven't seen a lot of rationale, but mostly personal opinions given by > the specification editor. I guess a study of the patterns like the > excellent work done on tables would be very useful. To me the difference is that tables have a clear use case and impose specific requirements on a variety of classes of UA. On the other hand, I'm not sure what the benefit of using <cite> is except a feeling that one is using "semantic" markup. Serious machine-readable citations will require considerably more machinery; something like hCite [1]. [1] http://microformats.org/wiki/citation -- "Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?" -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2008 12:05:15 UTC