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

Re: what is dt?

From: Stephen Stewart <carisenda@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 00:21:13 +0100
Cc: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, Smylers@stripey.com, public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <74C96B8E-5062-43BC-B2F7-80BB698D2302@gmail.com>
To: Jeremy Keith <jeremy@adactio.com>

On 15 Sep 2009, at 23:04, Jeremy Keith wrote:

> Stephen Stewart wrote:
>>> I concur completely with both your exclamation point and your  
>>> question mark. It's nutty advice that will be ignored by authors.
>> How is it "nutty" and why will it be ignored by authors?
> It is nutty because it suggests that a semantically empty element  
> (which is how the <b> element is now defined) is somehow suitable  
> for marking up the semantics of a person being cited in a  
> dialogue ...while obstinately refusing the accept that the existing  
> practice of marking up cited people with the <cite> element is a  
> viable option.

I think you're confusing cite with actor, player, speaker, nick, et  
cetera, if we're talking about semantics. A name in a conversation  
transcript isn't a citation, to cite is to refer to something that has  
gone before, at least it is to my understanding.

The examples of dialogue mark-up supplied in other threads and  
elsewhere used label, span, span with microformats, span with  
microdata and dt, so I'm not sure you can claim that <cite> is the  
existing practice.

> I know it will be ignored by authors because authors are smart.
> A smattering from Twitter today:
> http://twitter.com/gcarothers/statuses/4009205966
> "Jaw, floor, WHAT?! http://bit.ly/48Bhta Why in the world would  
> #html5 suggest using <b> tags to markup names?"

The suggestion has been withdrawn I think, but it wasn't to mark up  
names, it was to mark up the nick, player, actor, speaker or whoever  
of whatever type of dialogue happened to be being considered (and  
there are many). In this case not the same thing, semantically.

> http://twitter.com/akamike/statuses/4008187173
> "There are more appropriate tags than <b> for marking up names in  
> conversations. “The b element should be used as a last resort…”  
> #html5"

What are they? And it's not strictly names we're marking up, as I  
understand it.

> http://twitter.com/cssquirrel/statuses/4009216559
> "Well, if the <p><b> recommendations for dialog in #html5 persist  
> for a week, I know what I’m drawing."

A squirrel?

> But if more evidence is required, I'll see about putting together a  
> representative sampling of authors, sitting them in front of a  
> computer with a copy of Silverback fired up, and point them to the  
> relevant part of the spec so that we can see their reactions.

Shoot. Make sure they've actually marked up dialogue though (and can  
remember how they did it). Drawing cartoon squirrels doesn't count.

> Keeping the <b> and <i> elements in HTML5 is already a lot for  
> authors to have to swallow. To suggest that these elements should be  
> used instead of more semantically appropriate elements isn't going  
> to fly.

Aw, I like <b> and <i>, they're so short.

> -- 
> Jeremy Keith
> a d a c t i o
> http://adactio.com/

Stephen Stewart
Received on Tuesday, 15 September 2009 23:21:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:51 UTC