- From: Mark Stanton <mark@gruden.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:10:29 +1000
- To: <www-html@w3.org>
><p>Like <cite>Albert Einstein</cite> said: <blockquote><line>Keep it simple, >as simple as possible,</line><line>but no simpler.</line></blockquote></p> Love it :) >Seriously, you're not adding meaningful structure with span (or div) and >class while you do with most other elements. >Personally I'd like to have an element to mark up numbers with (currency, >date, with suffixed SI dimension etc. -- see your spreadsheet program), ><number> or <value> maybe. And one for people, company or product names >(e.g. <n> for "name" or <t> for "title"), so long <cite> is good enough for >that issue. Or a generic <term> [not only] for scientific documents, >although this might be too close to <dfn>. I think that the danger with going down this path is that with the web being as diverse as it is the list of elements that provide a "meaningful structure" to a specific context would grow and grow and would soon become impractical. I do see the benefit in the idea of tags such as those that are being suggested but I think taking this path would be a mistake. I am coming purely from a web dev perspective and I am sure that some of the aims of those putting to together the XHTML spec go far beyond both the current web as we know it and my limited view of things. Nevertheless as someone who spends his days with html I thought I'd chuck in my two cents. Cheers Mark
Received on Monday, 12 August 2002 23:14:05 UTC