Re: XHTML 2.0 - dfn : Content model and usability

Le 05-07-05 à 12:55, Laurens Holst a écrit :
> Btw, Rob’s mention of keyword indexing is also very good one. I  
> believe in our website’s search engine we indeed give pages with  
> the searchterm between <dfn></dfn> a higher rank.

to add to use cases and examples.

>> 3. Typographic purposes
>
> By that argument, why would you need <em> or <code>.

For semantics. :) Not for typography

*** Source: WordNet (r) 2.0 ***
typography
      n 1: the craft of composing type and printing from it
      2: art and technique of printing with movable type [syn:  
{composition}]

A voice browser will emphasize the sound for it, a voice browser  
could say, "Code" then …

> What I meant is that the addition would not be entirely useless,  
> but I think it will be difficult to use and whether it is really  
> practical is a question. In texts where I use <dfn>, the explaining  
> text generally isn’t fit to be taken out and put somewhere else. So  
> in order for it to work, I would have to rewrite the text, but that  
> would likely mean sub-optimal phrasing in the context.

Sorry to pull out dictionary _definition_, but it helps me to  
understand what we are talking about.

*** Source: WordNet (r) 2.0 ***
definition
      n 1: a concise explanation of the meaning of a word or phrase or
           symbol
      2: clarity of outline; "exercise had give his muscles superior
         definition"

>  So in the end I would probably just want to use a copy of the text  
> with minor changes for a definition list.

Which would be a lot easier to do if you could extract the list  
automatically.

> So whether it is useful enough to warrant addition to the spec is  
> doubtful, from my point of view.

See Al Gilmann message, At least I think the prose of XHTML 2.0  
explaining dfn is not enough to explain all the valuable use cases  
and examples, all of you gave.

> True. You currently can’t (conveniently) do that. But, again, I  
> give you the argument that it would be difficult to do so anyway  
> because the ‘dd’ is taken out of context.

So basically what you are saying is that "dfn" should not be "dfn" ;)  
but more "keyword". A bit of humour. ;))) Don't take it seriously.

>> Thanks Laurens for adding to the understanding. The Editors might   
>> want to add examples to clarify the use cases.
>>
>
> Agreed. But that’s why the XHTML 2.0 spec is still a working draft :).

:))) and hard work going on.

-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***

Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2005 17:38:19 UTC