W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > February 2007

[whatwg] De-emphasis

From: Jonathan Worent <jworent@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:21:25 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <357539.55464.qm@web32209.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- James Graham <jg307 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> Jonathan Worent wrote:
> > The argument that no-one would use it is pointless. There are plenty of elements in the spec
> right
> > now that aren't likely to be used often, but they're still in the spec because they have
> merit. 
> No, the argument that no one would use it is important. More elements => more 
> complex spec which is harder to implement /and to use/. Making HTML harder to 
> use is a real cost (compare HTML to e.g. Docbook) which needs to be outweighed 
> by a benefit. As far as I can see, no-one has presented a convincing use case 
> for a deemphasis element - certianly the most common argument has been "well we 
> have emphasis so obviously we need deemphasis" which is a lousy justification. 

That was brought but a as secondary argument (still a valid point IMHO). My original use case was
for transcribing dialog. This was something I was trying to do when I originally purposed it back
in Aug. 07. 

> Unless there is some UA feature that would be enabled by such an element, and 
> some evidence that people would use the element in the correct way in sufficient 
> numbers to make the feature useful, the element should not exist. It is true 
> that several existing HTML elements do not meet this criteria; that is IMHO an 
> unfortunate piece of history that we need not replicate.
> -- 
> "Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?"
>   -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
Received on Friday, 9 February 2007 11:21:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:52 UTC