- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 01:57:25 +0200
- To: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>
Smylers On 09-09-11 00.16: > Leif Halvard Silli writes: >> <dialog><dt><cite>Leif</cite>, HTMLwg member >> <dd>I propose <dl dialog> instead >> </dialog> > Having an element for marking up the titles of works is useful because > they are usual formatted distinctly (typically italicized) in text, to > convey to readers that the title is not 'normal' text. Conveying that > requires _some_ element. > > Whereas people, even when sources, do not typically have their names > distinguished. So using a <cite> for both prevents it from being able > to convey anything useful OK - I see that you have a valid concern w.r.t use of <cite> outside dialog list containers. But you are entirely wrong when you say that having <cite> for both "person sources" and "work sources" would prevent it from being able to convey any useful. Ever heard about the class attribute? Or perhaps <cite> needs the role attribute? Isn't <code> any useful since it can be used for all kinds of code? Should we rather have one code element for each language so that the author more easily could use a separate color for each language? Filing bug 7508, I first had the thought that I had finally found a good use case for the <name> element. And, depending on its semantics, <name> could probably be useful in dialogs - perhaps it could let us discern "pimpbot" and "trackbot" from you and me in the minutes of the HTMLwg telcon meeting, for instance ... My favorite author said that all books should have a name index that simply listed all names mentioned in the book. So <name> could be useful enough. But it is orthogonal (finally I took that word in my mouth) to <cite>. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 10 September 2009 23:58:06 UTC