- From: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:39:57 +0000
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- CC: Peter Krantz <peter.krantz@gmail.com>, HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>, Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
Once upon a time, Mankind communicated through a series of grunts. As language emerged, proto-man expressed concepts as simply as possible : "Mammoth : kill" or "Sabre-tooth tiger : run". As we continued to evolve, so did our language, and now there are many amongst us who prefer to use language as a surgeon's scalpel rather than as a mechanic's mallet. In just the same way, markup languages have evolved over time, and many of us (but clearly not yet all) seek to express not-so-subtle distinctions such as "Ship-name" v. "Linnaean-binomial" v. "Book-title" through the medium of our markup. Surely it is not too much to ask that the dinosaurs who can see no further than "<i>" to express all of these recognise that their time is long since past, and yield gracefully to those who are preparing for the future ? Philip TAYLOR -------- Lachlan Hunt wrote: > Beyond the typographical convention of italicising ship names in English > prose, what compelling use case is there for extracting such a ship name > from such prose? Why would an author have any desire to add such > markup using a custom vocabulary that few tools, if any, will understand > and even fewer users would have any use for? > > It seems to me that simply using <i> for the ship name (perhaps using a > class name for additional styling purposes) fulfills the the > typographical convention use case, without the unnecessary addition of > RDFa. >
Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:42:05 UTC