- From: David Latapie <david@empyree.org>
- Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 16:53:51 +0100
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:23:33 -0500, Leons Petrazickis wrote: > On 2/8/07, James Graham <jg307 at cam.ac.uk> wrote: > In the Western world, the standard for highlighting is a neon yellow > background. I submit that a much better name for <m> is <hi> > (<hilite>, <highlite>, <highlight>). People don't necessarily mark > text much -- if anything, "mark" implies underlining, circling, and > drawing arrows -- but they do highlight. In university, I often saw > students perched with their notes and a highlighter, marking important > sections. The semantic meaning is to draw attention for later review. My opinion. Of course, feel free to discard it entirely. == <hi> is better than <m> == - is m/hi for highlighting? Or for marking future reference? Work notes (that I presently format with <tt>) and search highlight (? la Google) seem to be grouped together, whereas they are much different. I much prefer <hi> than <m>, because the former is closer to the use. Mark may be understood as *id* (for anchors), as *comments*, or *work notes*. For instance: "HTML was released in 1992 <m>check about the 1989 allegation</m>" No such misunderstanding with <hi> == hi is not necessary == What Google is doing is almost good (almost, because <strong> would be better here). The highlighted words are the important ones. Highlighting could be some kind of <emph value="+3">. Still, we are in the importance mindset. And students highlighting whole paragraphs are doing just that. Denoting importance. Well, I summed up my feelings. I would be delighted to be convinced I'm wrong. -- </david_latapie> U+0F00 http://blog.empyree.org/en (English) http://blog.empyree.org/fr (Fran?ais) http://blog.empyree.org/sl (Slovensko)
Received on Thursday, 8 February 2007 07:53:51 UTC