W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Proposed amends to <small> element

From: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:25:59 -0600
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>, Ben Millard <cerbera@projectcerbera.com>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <CEE58574-5A0F-4C0B-81F6-287DA0866ECB@robburns.com>
To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>

Hi Patrick and Ian,

The real issue to me is that we shouldn't be redefining elements at  
all. If we don't want versioning to be a central part of HTML5, then  
we shouldn't be making drastic changes to element and attribute  
semantics that implies users need to know which version of HTMl is  
involved before knowing what the 'small' element means.

Perhaps these semantics are better left to a distributed extensibility  
mechanism (LawML or something like that).

Take care,

On Feb 11, 2009, at 8:05 PM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:

> Ian Hickson wrote:
>> I looked up "caveats" on anseers.com and the first definition was:
>> # Warnings, often written to a potential buyer, to be careful;  
>> often # offered as a way for the seller or broker to minimize  
>> liability for what # otherwise might be a deceptive trade practice.
> The first definition here is from the "business dictionary" part  
> further down (are you being selective in your quoting?). The common  
> definition above:
> http://www.answers.com/caveat
> # 1
> # a. A warning or caution: “A final caveat: Most experts feel that
> # clients get unsatisfactory results when they don't specify clearly
> # what they want” (Savvy).
> # b. A qualification or explanation.
> # 2. Law. A formal notice filed by an interested party with a court or
> # officer, requesting the postponement of a proceeding until the filer
> # is heard.
>> ...which seems far more loaded that "disadvantages". In general  
>> though I think it's pretty safe to say that the small print is  
>> disadvantages; after all, most people would not hide the advantages  
>> in the small print.
> Sorry, but that's a gross generalisation, unless are you basing this  
> on quantitative research you carried out on the content of small  
> print used around the world?
> Caveat: this metal fork should not be inserted into an electrical  
> socket...is that a disadvantage?
> A classic small print "this does not affect your statutory  
> rights"...is that a disadvantage? Did you want your statutory rights  
> to be affected?
> P
> -- 
> Patrick H. Lauke
> ______________________________________________________________
> re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
> [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
> www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
> http://redux.deviantart.com
> ______________________________________________________________
> Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
> http://webstandards.org/
> ______________________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 04:26:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:42 UTC