- From: Michael <mikes@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 16:56:05 +0900
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>? --Mike -------------- 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