- From: Stefan Ram <ram@ZEDAT.FU-Berlin.DE>
- Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 14:58:07 +0200
- To: www-html@w3.org
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 12:27:04PM +0300, Mikko Rantalainen wrote: > I think we need to understand the problem better before trying to > decide the right answer. It can never be false to better understand a problem. > Do you really think that those "boxes" > aren't *logically* part of containing section. Then, let's separate the problem of elements, which might be considered "out-of-flow/section". So I do not address such "boxes" anymore with the suggestion. > After saying that, if you're repeating work already done by > somebody else, what's the problem with marking up the proof as > blockquote and styling it to look like proofs traditionally look in > such articles? OK, but the cases where I write a proof/exercise/picture/table/ example/definition/remark/whatever of my own are still left, where XHTML 2 now has decided to give special support to definitions only, but not to other types of speech and also only for definitions within lists of definitions. ** I became aware of possible modifications to my original suggestion: Instead of a new "contents" element type, of course, the "p" element type should be reused, and also the "h" element type should be used instead of "title", so I now suggest to use, e.g., <bos isa="FAQ-entry"> <h role="question">What is a Flower?</h> <p role="answer">The reproductive part of a plant.</contents> </bos> (Even the "bos" might be replaced by "section" if one specifies that the section is considered "bottom-up" once it has an isa-attribute.) The "h" element might be omitted, so that a sequence of paragraphs can be marked as a proof just by <bos isa="proof"> <p>(Left as an exercise to the reader.)</p> </bos> (Rendition software [user agents] might decide to number proofs or create tables of proofs or so.) -- http://purl.net/stefan_ram/
Received on Friday, 8 August 2003 08:58:08 UTC