- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 13:28:33 -0400
- To: Rob Mientjes <robmientjes@gmail.com>
- Cc: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>, www-html-editor@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
Le 05-07-05 à 12:34, Rob Mientjes a écrit : > You are kind of ignoring the more important bit here, namely that DFN > is also used for keyword indexing. If Google were a better bot, it > would use the <dfn> tags on pages to give them more weight, which they > have. Not just that. A small app that would simply list all DFNs on > that page with links to them would be very handy for a wiki page where > some stuff does not require a new page, for example. which means that you have to make the "id" attribute mandatory for this purpose. If I follow you, because a dfn alone would be useless? Good: Another use case to add to the specification. > ... It does have semantic meaning. The fact alone that a UA could say > "hey punk, take a look at this word, for it's defined somewhere near > it. You might want to know" makes it semantic :) So is it a requirement for implementation for user agent? Not said in the specification. All the interesting comments made since the start shows that there is a lack of - practical examples - implementation requirement - semantic model definition - use cases One or more of those items in the list in the specification and/or a best practices guide for XHTML 2.0. Because right now, many people (webmasters, users, etc) don't understand it, including me on many things. :) > Like I said, it's useful enough. Don't use Laurens's aside remark > regarding just the lack of a way to mark up the _explanation_ to > undermine the whole essence of a DFN element. It's lacking, yeah, but > it does not obsolete DFN at all. ok. Fair enough at the light of the comments. >>> Especially because it takes the text out of context, I don't think >>> making glossaries based on this is a good idea, nor very useful. >>> > > No, obviously not. Referencing, however, is exactly what the web is > about, and I see DFN as just another means to do so. except that to know what part of the definition is useful to understand the term makes it very difficult without a container. Al Gilmann made a very good comment accessibility wise for example. >> If you can produce a dl/dt/dd glossary parsing a text for definition. >> You gain time. >> > > Agreed. DL is the only sensible way to do _that_, but again, it does > not obsolete DFN. > > >> Thanks Laurens for adding to the understanding. The Editors might >> want to add examples to clarify the use cases. >> > > Examples are always good. I believe the CSSWG has a complete new team > just for composing examples ;) ;) Maybe a wiki project could be used to create the use case for each element on this element and that would be the start of a best practice guide. thanks again. -- Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ W3C Conformance Manager *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2005 17:28:37 UTC