- From: Ian Devlin <ian.devlin@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 21:18:24 +0200
- To: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAOYOhSv=6rbtaAq9sBpryGrv3aUOO=JsX0ERodv2gB9wuSdgnA@mail.gmail.com>
I've had this thought before and agree. It would be a useful addition for those who need it. On 31 Jul 2015 19:06, "Sarven Capadisli" <info@csarven.ca> wrote: > Hi, > > Pardon me if this was previously considered, I was not able to reasonably > get a hold of the information for the following: > > I think it would be appropriate to make the datetime attribute as one of > the normative attributes for the mark element. As I understand <mark>, it > generally indicates that there was some marking/highlighting activity done > on text. I see this is a similar activity to <del> and <ins>, which may be > accompanied with the datetime attribute. > > A use case for this is where a user (not necessarily the author of the > document) marks/highlights a piece of text where the timestamp of that > activity is preserved, so that information could later be collected. It > grants the possibility where all editorial - pardon me for the lack of a > better term - changes or interactions fit into a timeframe. > > I have considered employing the data attribute e.g., data-datetime, but > figured that the datetime attribute would be most suitable in this case. > > In case I've missed something obvious, happy to hear your thoughts. > > -Sarven > http://csarven.ca/#i > >
Received on Friday, 31 July 2015 19:18:52 UTC