- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 23:30:10 +0100
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 22:36:25 +0100, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt at lachy.id.au> wrote: > Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> I think I agree that <m> should be dropped. I believe such an element >> has never been requested before on www-html or equivalent fora. > > No, the use cases for <m> are clear, and it is different from both <em> > and <strong>. I think it should be kept as-is, though its definition in > the spec clearly needs to be improved. I'm not arguing against this. (Heck, I provided the idea for the second example.) I'm just saying it hasn't really been requested before and that I'm wondering whether it's common enough to warrant a new element. Perhaps <u> can be "reused" for this as Henri suggested or perhaps we shouldn't really specify this as an element yet and let the microformat community look into it more closely first. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Friday, 9 February 2007 14:30:10 UTC