- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 18:13:53 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Toby A Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>, Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson On 09-08-15 13.16: > On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Lachlan Hunt wrote: >> The cite and pubdate attributes now defined for the article and section >> elements don't seem to be very well designed. It's not entirely clear >> what problem they are meant to solve, or use cases they are addressing. > > cite="" on <section> is solving the problem that Chaals doesn't know where > the parts of his document come from. > > cite="" on <article> is solving the same problem as <a rel=bookmark>. > > pubdate="" on <article> is solving the problem that there's no other way > to associate a publication date with a blog entry in HTML, in particular > to allow for conversion to Atom. [snipped your other pro section@cite/article@cite statements.] > I've removed cite="" from <section> and <article>, since their use cases > are either weak or solved by other problems. What does "solved by other problems" mean? If it was meant "solved by other means", which means? Microdata? > I've not removed pubdate="" > since I don't see how else to get an unambiguous date out for conversion > to Atom without annointing a class name. I don't know why a @class ought to be better. But a predefined class name solution should in principle be possible to introduce via the profile/versioning *concept*. (HTML 4 embeds a default profile, HTML 5 embeds another profile.) > I've also not done anything with > <blockquote cite=""> at this time, since the arguments against them (not > quoted above, but mentioned in passing in the original e-mails from which > the above is quoted) were weak to non-existent. Thanks! > While <blockquote cite=""> > is hardly a commonly used attribute, its presence does not seem to have > done as much harm as one usually finds is caused by such features, and a > surprising number of people who contribute to the standards process seem > to like having the ability to cite their sources using that attribute. > > I would like to drop pubdate="" also, if we can do so in some manner that > still solves the aforementioned problem. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Saturday, 15 August 2009 16:14:38 UTC