- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:40:10 +0000 (UTC)
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > Now I know backwards compatibility is important[1], but DEL and INS are > insanely complex to use and do not cover all "edit" use cases. Can you give some examples they don't cover? I'm aware of some, for example to mark a list item as deleted you can only mark the contents as deleted, not the item itself. But I don't see these as major enough changes to require changing the edit markup model. > What XHTML2 does makes more sense to me (introducing a global attribute) > and also covers the use cases you see most online. It looked to me like the use of an attribute in XHTML2 was actually a hack to get around limitations of DTDs and of CSS. HTML5's design isn't being constrained by either of those so I don't see why edit="" is better. > Editing forum posts, weblog posts, etc. With forum posts there is mostly a > note that the user edited his comment but you never see "though<ins>t</ins>". > You see something like: "Last time edited: {date}". I actually see inline comments about when things were fixed more often than I see "last edited", but that may just be the blogs I frequent. > Now if you could say somehow that the contents of some element have been > modified You can. Wrap those bits you removed in a <del> and wrap the new bits in an <ins>. > <article edit="modified" datetime="{datetime}"> > ... > > You could easily present that information to the user using CSS or some > other mechanism. The information is there with <ins>/<del> as well. > INS and DEL are IMHO not really appropriate for those kind of edits. On the contrary, I think they are the kinds of edits most suitable to <ins>. It certainly leaves more metadata in the document. It may be helpful for authors to use these rules: ins { text-decoration: none; color: inherit; } del { display: block; } -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 18 April 2005 01:40:10 UTC