- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 02:51:52 +0000 (UTC)
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009, tjeddo wrote: > > I am surprised at how little concern there seems to be over the lack of > bibliography markup in HTML5. There's a lot of concern, but it was deemed that microdata is a better way of addressing this than specific elements. > What if HTML5 specified this approach--except that in place of the <dl> > (definition list) tags, a collection of entries would be contained > between <bibliography> tags? That is, the above example would look as > follows: > > <bibliography> ... > > <dt id="refsRFC5322">[RFC5322]</dt> > <dd><cite><a href="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5322.txt">Internet Message > Format</a></cite>, P. Resnick. IETF, October 2008.</dd> > > ... > </bibliography> > > The value here is the elimination of ambiguity What ambiguity? > and that a number of new inferences can now be drawn by user agents. > With the <dl> tags, the interpreting agent can only determine that there > is a definition list containing term/definition entries. Whereas, in > the context of a new bibliography section element, user agents can > unambiguously interpret the 'dt' element to be the displayed content > that humans identify a bibliography entry by (e.g., "[RFC5322]" in the > example given). Why is this valuable? How do you expect browser vendors to change their interface to use this? Why would it not be better to have a microdata vocabulary for this? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 5 October 2009 19:51:52 UTC