W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2006

[whatwg] Element name expressiveness

From: Michael <mikes@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 16:56:05 +0900
Message-ID: <20061101075604.GG4549@malware>
Michel Fortin <michel.fortin at michelf.com>, 2006-10-31 09:43 -0500:

> I find the proposed <x> and <t> elements to lack expressiveness in  
> their names. I understand that making them shorter is desirable, but  
> it also has a drawback: they're harder to understand simply by  
> looking at the source and their meaning can more easily be  
> misunderstood. Not everybody read the spec and those that don't are  
> more prone to use them inappropriately.
> Personally, I'd favor <term> and <time> instead, or anything else  
> that conveys a meaning.

If the design criteria were to try to keep names of new elements
reasonably short while still having unobscure meanings, then
<time> and <term> would seem to meet that criteria, and <m> would
better be <mark>. But I'm not sure what the criteria are. I mean,
what's the rationale behind having <meter> and <progress> while
reducing the name of the date/time element to <t>?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 2245 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20061101/100931f8/attachment.bin>
Received on Tuesday, 31 October 2006 23:56:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:49 UTC