[whatwg] Add 'type' attribute to <mark>

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Pentasis <pentasis at lavabit.com> wrote:
> Sure, classes can be used that way, but I quoted the HTML4 spec earlier and
> have not seen anyone contradict the fact that it does not provide that
> functionality to the class-attribute. Now, perhaps it does in the HTML5
> spec, if so, I stand corrected.
I want to clarify something here, although it's as much personal
opinion as it's fact.
Classes *are intended* to be semantic. The original idea behind them
in HTML4 was already focused in that direction, although the wording
was quite vague. In addition, the HTML4 spec had deprecated all the
presentational stuff, and hooking CSS through classes was the best
alternative to all this deprecated stuff.
HTML5, while still quite vague, has a clearer wording on how classes
are intended to be used:
>From http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#classes:
"Authors may use any value in the class attribute, but are encouraged
to use the values that describe the nature of the content, rather than
values that describe the desired presentation of the content."
With this, HTML5 is *not* changing the intention of classes, it is
just making it clearer. The actual issue is that HTML4 mentioned an
example of typical/expected usage (CSS hooking), and it has been taken
as the "norm" rather than as the "specific-case example" it was
suposed to be. So, what HTML5 is trying to change here is how classes
are actually used, bringing them back to their original intent.

Anyway, this whole class-usage discussion, despite interesting, is
just tangentially related to the original topic. If you have any issue
with that part of the spec, maybe you should start a separate
discussion for it. I should point out, anyway, that while I agree with
you about the need of some type/role attribute to better scope those
vaguely-semantic elements like <mark>; I mostly disagree with your
idea that classes should be used only for styling.

> I did not start out this discussion with a "why not" question. But sofar all
> the arguments I have been given do not add up logically. And if you say "why
> should it"? I can most definatly respond with "why not?"
Of course you didn't. If you had, I wouldn't have even bothered on replying.
Actually, I gave a list of arguments about why the <mark> element, as
currently defined, miserably fails to fulfill any of its purposes
(except the presentational one); and how your proposal would indeed
fulfill such purposes. Nobody has even bothered to reply to it.
Ok, I'll admit: I'm human, hence I'm not perfect, hence I might be
wrong: but nobody has made any effort to prove me wrong. My reply
made, IMO, quite good points about your proposal, so I got simply
ignored; and you made the little mistake of straying into a side topic
(classes usage), and people have picked on you for that, using that
mistake to bury the valid points of your original suggestion into

> For me the discussion ends here since I don't think it is worth the trouble.
Definitely, it isn't. I don't even know why am I still wasting my time
here: I had some hope that web author's feedback would be really taken
into consideration when I joined, but not anymore now that I've seen
through the facade of this list.

> All I can say is that I think discussions on this list are of a very closed,
> almost defensive nature. But perhaps that is my own fault.
Your only fault, just like me, was to believe this was a serious place
for discussion. But it isn't: it is just a tool: feedback "praising"
the spec will be kept well safe, while feedback suggesting anything
that was not the idea of browser vendors gets buried in
side-discussions or simply ignored. In the end, feedback is not being
used to improve the spec, but to hide the fact that it is nothing else
than the tyrannical imposition of browser vendors upon the entire Web.
So once they go through and publish HTML5 as a recommendation or
standard, they will use all this filtered, non-representative
feedback, to claim that it was defined by the entire Web community.
But the truth is that browser vendors will do whatever they please,
just like they did before the W3C existed, only that they are now also
trying to attach it the "standard" tag.
Maybe I'm completely wrong on this but, since I joined this list few
months ago, I have seen absolutelly nothing that could make me think I

Received on Sunday, 2 November 2008 09:29:33 UTC