- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 11:44:58 -0500
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Pentasis <pentasis at lavabit.com> wrote: > Yes, but this is a theoretical explanation that does not provide a >>> consistent, practical solution. >>> >> >> I don't understand why these solutions aren't consistent or practical. >> > > First of all, the spec admits it itself: > "HTML does not have a dedicated mechanism for marking up footnotes. Here > are the recommended alternatives." > Alternatives are not real mechanisms. > > It gives us the option of using the title attribute (which has no mechanism > of expansion and we cannot group them). > Then it gives us the a element solution, which is how it is already done in > most cases but leaves much to be desired (there are plenty of articles about > it on the web). > And last it tells us we can use the aside element. But in this example > there is no *direct* relation to the actual word/phrase we put in the aside. > It also gives us -again- no direct mechanism of expansion and no way of > grouping footnotes/sidenotes. > > Now, I am perfectly happy for this spec not to provide a footnote > construct, but in that case I would strongly suggest removing these > alternatives and simply say it should be resolved using scripting (which has > much more flexibility) or not say anything at all about it. > Grouping and such is a stylistic concern, though - as long as the document expresses a footnote semantic, that's all it has to do. For the rest, we have a CSS Module that will cover that area, the Generated and Replaced Content module [1]. By an astonishing coincidence, the editor of this module is no less than Ian himself. [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-content/ ~TJ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20081101/c3b07731/attachment.htm>
Received on Saturday, 1 November 2008 09:44:58 UTC