- From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
- Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 18:46:40 +0200
Quoting Michel Fortin <michel.fortin at michelf.com>: > I would also use <f> instead of <formula> (as Juan used in one of his > example), because it's shorter and fits well with many other wildly > used container elements: <p>, <h1>-<h6>, <ol>, <ul>, <li>, <dl>, <dt>, > and <dd>. This would only work if it would in fact be wildly used. And since math doesn't seem to be that wildly used and probably won't ever be wildly used I guess a more descriptive name is better to avoid potential confusion, imho. > Under scripts and under braces, over scripts and over braces: Is it > useful to have distinct <ubase> and <obase>? And the whole concept > reminds of the Ruby Annotation module of XHTML 1.1 [2] and Ruby in CSS > 3 [3]. Maybe some parts of that model could be reused. Maybe we could > even add Ruby (or a derivative of it) to HTML 5 and use it in formulas > and elsewhere. I've already sort of proposed to add Ruby to HTML. Simple Ruby is already supported by Internet Explorer in HTML (I think the XHTML module was based on that implementation) and it makes sense to have it for certain foreign (to me at least) use cases. > [2]: http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby/ > [3]: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-ruby/ -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Wednesday, 7 June 2006 09:46:40 UTC