- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 18:27:27 +0100
- To: contact <contact@thecodeplayground.net>
- Cc: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+ri+VmKfrkqGg_zT02qP9RiE89_QnzLU1f1WGkj18C0N7iWyg@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Angela, As an author, I really need subheadings and taglines. All the time. In my > opinion, if a new element can't do the job with a consensus, could the > *small* element be redefined so to promote the de-emphazising role? > lets find out... -- Regards SteveF HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/> On 8 June 2013 18:23, <contact@thecodeplayground.net> wrote: > Hi, Steve, Jukka > > Maybe the problem, in the first place, comes from the fact that the > *small* element doesn't have a precise definition. It seems to me that it > has any strong semantic meaning. "side comments such as small print", > doesn't mean much to me and I don't believe I ever found myself asking me > which element to use for caveats or legal restrictions (that are, for most > of the content, just paragraphs, no?). > > In the other hand, I've always struggled to choose the most appropriate > element for subheadings or taglines. > The "de-emphazising" side of *small* was implicitly adopted by many web > authors (and it seems quite natural to me, as I want to believe that > *small* is not a semantic-less element). > > As an author, I really need subheadings and taglines. All the time. In my > opinion, if a new element can't do the job with a consensus, could the > *small* element be redefined so to promote the de-emphazising role? > > Cheers, > Angela Ricci > > Invited Expert > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > "Steve Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> > > To: > "Jukka K. Korpela" <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi> > Cc: > "HTMLWG WG" <public-html@w3.org> > Sent: > Sat, 8 Jun 2013 17:48:49 +0100 > Subject: > Re: <subline> becomes <subhead> and other updates > > > > Hi Jukka, > > >I still wonder what is the problem that such proposals are supposed to > solve. > > I outlined some of the reasons for the proposal here > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2013May/0173.html > > Here is what i think developers want (not necessarily need) anybody > feel free to add/subtract disagree etc > > - A way to indicate part of a heading is differentiated from another > part as in title/subtitle/alterntive title > - A way to indicate that text is not a heading but is closely > associated with a heading and more specific than a paragraph. > - Easy ways to style such content > > on top of that the semi-mythical outline algorithm wants /needs a way to > identify things that isn't heading content that should be included in the > outline, which is why <hgroup> was foisted upon us. > > > If the problem being solved is authors' question "which markup should I >> use for...", then I would say that such a problem needs no solution in the >> form of a new markup element. People have solved such problems over 20 >> years, with whatever HTML elements are available. There is no need for >> unification, partly because there is no objectively definable, reasonably >> exact definition for the structure that the new elements are supposed to >> indicate. >> > > I tend to agree, but am exploring ideas such as <subhead> as i think part > of my job as an editor of the html spec is to try to make solid authors > suggestions and see if we can make something useful. Its the same reason I > have pursued the discussion on small, to stimulate discussion and see if we > can make progress on it even reach some rough consensus... > > I have no great enthusiasm for pushing this proposal any further than it > currently is (i.e. an unofficial draft) in the process. But if it goes no > further, but helps make it clearer that such an element is not needed or > would not be supported by browsers etc, then it serves a useful purpose. It > may also make us think that perhaps the use of <small> to indicate > de-emphasised text in general is all we need to indicate some bits of a > heading are subordinate to others. > > But others may disagree and wish to put further effort into <subhead> or > some other idea, if so I would support that. (anybody thinking about this > should read Extension How To http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ExtensionHowTo > ) > > > > > -- > > Regards > > SteveF > HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/> > > > On 8 June 2013 17:04, Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>wrote: > >> 2013-06-08 16:21, Steve Faulkner wrote: >> >>> <subline> becomes <subhead> and other updates http://rawgithub.com/w3c/* >>> *subline/master/index.html<http://rawgithub.com/w3c/subline/master/index.html> >>> <http**://t.co/xWQE2owXRm <http://t.co/xWQE2owXRm>> >>> >>> >> I still wonder what is the problem that such proposals are supposed to >> solve. >> >> Surely there are often parts of headings that might be classified as >> "subheads", for example. Or they might seen as parts of headings styled >> differently. Is there some need to force authors into using one specific >> markup for them, as opposite to dealing with it with <small> or <span> or >> whatever? Even if this means that *no* currently used browser supports such >> markup? >> >> If the problem being solved is authors' question "which markup should I >> use for...", then I would say that such a problem needs no solution in the >> form of a new markup element. People have solved such problems over 20 >> years, with whatever HTML elements are available. There is no need for >> unification, partly because there is no objectively definable, reasonably >> exact definition for the structure that the new elements are supposed to >> indicate. >> >> I would like to draw your attention to the book that has probably the >> best-known title with "sublines", The Origin of Species: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**File:Origin_of_Species_title_**page.jpg<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Origin_of_Species_title_page.jpg>The book cover has a longish heading presented in four or five different >> font sizes, divided in a manner that would presumably call not only for >> <subhead> but also <subsubhead> and <subsubsubhead>, if we think that any >> part of a heading that *could* be viewed as being structurally different >> from the rest *must* be marked up with a tag that indicates that. >> >> -- >> Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~**jkorpela/<http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/> >> >> >> >
Received on Saturday, 8 June 2013 17:28:37 UTC